Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 319

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

Lee, Anna, Fan, Lawrence T. Y., Gin, Tony, Karmakar, Manoj K., Ngan Kee, Warwick D.·2006·Anesthesia & Analgesia

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1213/01.ane.0000217211.12232.55

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 319

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.