The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A new practical classification of laryngeal view
Abstract
A new practical classification of laryngeal view at laryngoscopy is presented and evaluated. The best laryngeal view obtained with or without anterior laryngeal pressure is recorded. The laryngeal view is easy ( E )when the laryngeal inlet is visible. The view is restricted ( R ) when the posterior glottic structures (posterior commissure or arytenoids) are visible or the epiglottis is visible and can be lifted; this includes some grade 2 and some grade 3 views as classified by Cormack and Lehane. A difficult ( D ) view is present when the epiglottis cannot be lifted or when no laryngeal structures are visible. Five hundred patients were studied. Laryngoscopy, with the patient anaesthetised and paralysed, was performed with a Macintosh laryngoscope. If the vocal cords were not visible, a gum elastic bougie was used to aid intubation. Other aids were used only if this did not allow intubation. Each laryngeal view was graded according to the new classification and that of Cormack and Lehane. Intubation was timed and the equipment needed to facilitate intubation was recorded. The new classification stratified increasing difficulty with intubation (time for intubation longer and increasingly complex methods needed) better than the Cormack and Lehane classification. The new classification is as sensitive and more specific than the Cormack and Lehane classification in predicting difficult intubation. It is also more sensitive and more specific in predicting easy intubation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Frerk, C., Mitchell, V. S., McNarry, A. F., Mendonca, C., Bhagrath, R., Patel, A., O’Sullivan, E. P., Woodall, N. M., & Ahmad, I. (2015) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aev371 · Cited by 2,214
Lewis, S. R., Butler, A. R., Parker, J., Cook, T. M., Schofield-Robinson, O. J., & Smith, A. F. (2017) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aex228 · Cited by 359
Self-citationfor the Canadian Airway Focus Group, Law, J. A., Broemling, N., Cooper, R. M., Drolet, P., Duggan, L. V., Griesdale, D. E., Hung, O. R., Jones, P. M., Kovacs, G., et al. (2013) · Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie · doi:10.1007/s12630-013-0019-3 · Cited by 358
Video‐laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: a topical review of the literature
NIFOROPOULOU, P., PANTAZOPOULOS, I., DEMESTIHA, T., KOUDOUNA, E., & XANTHOS, T. (2010) · Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2010.02285.x · Cited by 316
Predicting difficult intubation–worthwhile exercise or pointless ritual?
(2002) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1046/j.0003-2409.2001.02515.x · Cited by 280
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, T. M.
- Venue
- Anaesthesia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 274-279
- ISSN
- 0003-2409 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2044
- OpenAlex
- W2066028979
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new practical classification of laryngeal view. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01270.x
- The paper
- Cook, T. M. (2000). A new practical classification of laryngeal view. Anaesthesia. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01270.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.