290
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults † †This Article is accompanied by Editorials aev298 and aev404.

      British journal of anaesthesia
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references264

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Human error: models and management.

          J. Reason (2000)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Predicting difficult intubation in apparently normal patients: a meta-analysis of bedside screening test performance.

              The objective of this study was to systematically determine the diagnostic accuracy of bedside tests for predicting difficult intubation in patients with no airway pathology. Thirty-five studies (50,760 patients) were selected from electronic databases. The overall incidence of difficult intubation was 5.8% (95% confidence interval, 4.5-7.5%). Screening tests included the Mallampati oropharyngeal classification, thyromental distance, sternomental distance, mouth opening, and Wilson risk score. Each test yielded poor to moderate sensitivity (20-62%) and moderate to fair specificity (82-97%). The most useful bedside test for prediction was found to be a combination of the Mallampati classification and thyromental distance (positive likelihood ratio, 9.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.1-31.9). Currently available screening tests for difficult intubation have only poor to moderate discriminative power when used alone. Combinations of tests add some incremental diagnostic value in comparison to the value of each test alone. The clinical value of bedside screening tests for predicting difficult intubation remains limited.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                10.1093/bja/aev371
                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                Comments

                Comment on this article