MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Antiviral treatment for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis)

2015· review· en· W1467736063 on OpenAlexaff
Ildikó Gágyor, Vishnu Madhok, Fergus Daly, Dhruvashree Somasundara, Michael Sullivan, Fiona Gammie, Frank Sullivan

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonRetract and Replace;Temporary Removal;Unreliable Data;
Date9/7/2015 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBell's palsyBell PalsyFacial paralysisPalsyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPediatricsSurgeryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. Significant morbidity can be associated with severe cases of Bell's palsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy. SEARCH METHODS: On 7 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, DARE, NHS EED, and HTA. We also reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors and known experts in the field and relevant drug companies to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. We excluded trials that had a high risk of bias in several domains. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials, including 2883 participants, met the inclusion criteria and are included in the final analysis. We added four studies to the previous review for this update. Some of the trials were small, and a number were at high or unclear risk of bias. Other trials did not meet current best standards in allocation concealment and blinding. Incomplete recoveryWe found no significant benefit from adding antivirals to corticosteroids in comparison with corticosteroids alone for people with Bell's palsy (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.02, n = 1715). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House-Brackmann scores of 5 and 6 or the equivalent in other scales), we found a reduction in the rate of incomplete recovery at month six when antivirals plus corticosteroids were used (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99, n = 478). The outcome for the participants receiving corticosteroids alone was significantly better than for those receiving antivirals alone (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.20, n = 1169). The treatment effect of placebo was significantly lower than that of antivirals plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.76, n = 658). Antivirals alone had a non-significant detrimental effect on the outcome compared with placebo (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40, n = 658). Motor synkinesis or crocodile tearsIn three trials comparing antivirals and corticosteroids with corticosteroids and placebo that assessed this outcome, we found a significant difference in long-term sequelae in favour or antivirals plus corticosteroids (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99, n = 869). Three trials comparing antivirals alone with corticosteroids alone investigating this outcome showed fewer sequelae with corticosteroids (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.85, n = 873). We found no data on long-term sequelae for other comparisons. Adverse events Adverse event data were available in three studies giving comparison data on 1528 participants. None of the four comparisons (antivirals plus corticosteroids versus corticosteroids plus placebo or no treatment; antivirals versus corticosteroids; antivirals plus corticosteroids versus placebo; antivirals versus placebo) showed significant differences in adverse events between treatment and control arms. We could find no correlation with specific treatment within these results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials showed no additional benefit from the combination of antivirals with corticosteroids compared to corticosteroids alone or with placebo, and no benefit from antivirals alone compared to placebo, for the treatment of Bell's palsy. Moderate-quality evidence showed a small but just significant benefit of combination therapy compared with corticosteroids alone in severe Bell's palsy. We found no significant increase in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.257
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations99
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207