The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Systematic Review (Meta-Analysis) of the Accuracy of the Mallampati Tests to Predict the Difficult Airway
Abstract
In Brief The original and modified Mallampati tests are commonly used to predict the difficult airway, but there is controversy regarding their accuracy. We searched MEDLINE and other databases for prospective studies of patients undergoing general anesthesia in which the results of a preoperative Mallampati test were compared with the subsequent rate of difficult airway (difficult laryngoscopy, difficult intubation, or difficult ventilation as reference tests). Forty-two studies enrolling 34,513 patients were included. The definitions of the reference tests varied widely. For predicting difficult laryngoscopy, both versions of the Mallampati test had good accuracy (area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve = 0.89 ± 0.05 and 0.78 ± 0.05, respectively). For predicting difficult intubation, the modified Mallampati test had good accuracy (area under the sROC curve = 0.83 ± 0.03) whereas the original Mallampati test was poor (area under the sROC curve = 0.58 ± 0.12). The Mallampati tests were poor at identifying difficult mask ventilation. Publication bias was not detected. Used alone, the Mallampati tests have limited accuracy for predicting the difficult airway and thus are not useful screening tests. IMPLICATIONS: The accuracy of the original and modified versions of the Mallampati test ranges from poor to good for predicting difficult laryngoscopy and difficult intubation. The Mallampati tests have limited accuracy for predicting the difficult airway and thus are not useful screening tests when used alone.
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
Cites
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis
Macaskill, P., Walter, S. D., & Irwig, L. (2001) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.698 · Cited by 1,286
Cited by
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, A., Fan, L. T. Y., Gin, T., Karmakar, M. K., & Ngan Kee, W. D.
- Venue
- Anesthesia & Analgesia
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1867-1878
- ISSN
- 0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2140677359
- Cited by
- 319
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.05
- 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 Systematic Review (Meta-Analysis) of the Accuracy of the Mallampati Tests to Predict the Difficult Airway. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1213/01.ane.0000217211.12232.55
- The paper
- Lee, A., Fan, L. T. Y., Gin, T., Karmakar, M. K., & Ngan Kee, W. D. (2006). A Systematic Review (Meta-Analysis) of the Accuracy of the Mallampati Tests to Predict the Difficult Airway. Anesthesia & Analgesia. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000217211.12232.55
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.