Talk:Cormack–Lehane classification system

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Work plan Cormack Lehane Classification

1. Add Illustrations

Include appropriately licensed diagrams or images that clearly show each grade of the classification system to aid visual understanding.

2. Expand History and Development Provide a brief overview of the system’s origin, including when and why it was created, using authoritative textbooks and peer-reviewed sources.

3. Update and Strengthen Sources

Evaluate current references for reliability and replace or supplement older sources with recent secondary literature (e.g., review articles, textbook chapters).

4. Highlight Efficacy and Predictive Value

Incorporate recent data on how well the grading system predicts intubation difficulty and outcomes. Compare it to other airway classification tools like the Mallampati score, explaining similarities and differences.

5. Evaluate Article Quality

Ensure all facts are referenced with reliable sources.

Verify neutrality—remove any biased language or framing.

Ensure all information is relevant and up-to-date.

Identify missing content, outdated material, or broken citations.

Check for over- or underrepresented viewpoints.

6. Prioritized Sections for Improvement

Grades and Definitions (with images)

Clinical Relevance and Application

Historical Background

Comparisons with Other Airway Classification Tools

Limitations and Criticisms

7. Research Plan Use authoritative anesthesiology textbooks (e.g., Miller’s Anesthesia), guidelines, and peer-reviewed journals (Anesthesiology, BJA) to source material.

8. Internal Linking and Accessibility Add internal links to related Wikipedia pages (e.g., "Airway management," "Mallampati score") and ensure language is clear and free of excessive medical jargon ("doctor-speak").

class 3 division

I want to propose the comarck 3a and 3b classification. We can see on the miller textbook, 7th edition:

"The most useful modification is a subclassification of grade 3 into 3a when the epiglottis can be lifted from the posterior pharyngeal wall and 3b when it cannot be lifted."

Indeed this is true, and in fact, it is more important whether the epiglottis can be lifted or not, rather than the vocal cords or arithenoids are fully seen (2a/2b)

There is evidence to this here: Refs: 1. Henderson J (2010). Airway Management in the Adult. In RD Miller et al., eds., Miller's Anesthesia, 7th ed., p. 1570. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone. 2. Cook TM: A new practical classification of laryn-geal view. Anaesthesia 55:274-279, 2000. (HelenoBR (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

picture

There should definitely be a picture here, shouldn't it? There are several good pics around. (HelenoBR (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 2024-25 TCOM WikiMed Period 21

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 March 2025 and 28 March 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bilalkhurshid123 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: DepakoteDayDreamz.

— Assignment last updated by 72chilly (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review, copied and pasted from user page

General info

[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Bilalkhurshid123

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bilalkhurshid123/Cormack%E2%80%93Lehane_classification_system?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Cormack–Lehane classification system

Evaluate the drafted changes

[edit]

My assigned peer's only change to the article up to this point is the addition of an image, but I will evaluate the rest of the article using the guiding principles outlined prior and make recommendations.

LEAD

The lead has not been updated by my assigned peer yet. The lead section is the only section, along with a "see also" section. The lead section is concise and easy to understand.

CONTENT

This is a very short article. The content is relevant and talks about the history of this classification system but I would recommend expanding on the content. It may be need to be updated since the most recent reference on this article is from 2002.

TONE AND BALANCE

There are no issues with tone or balance. The article is neutral in its narration. No controversial claims.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

No changes to the references have been made. I like that all the references are free access to the public. All the links work. The sources appear thorough. However, the most recent resource is from 2002. I would recommend trying to add a resource from the past 10-15 years.

IMAGES

I really like that my peer added a photo to the article to further illustrate what this classification system is describing. This is the only edit that my peer has made to the article at the point that I am reviewing it. The image he added is appropriately captioned and is relevant to the topic discussed in the article.

SUGGESTIONS

I would recommend updating the references to have at least one from the past 10-15 years. I would also add more sections to the article, such as updates to this classification system if any have been made. DepakoteDayDreamz (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]