Sialendoscopy for the management of juvenile recurrent parotitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of sialendoscopy for the treatment of juvenile recurrent parotitis (JRP). The study was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and Google Scholar was completed and limited to studies published in English. Relevant reference lists were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected prospective or retrospective studies of pediatric patients treated with interventional sialendoscopy for the management of JRP. Outcome measures included rates of successful treatment (no further episodes of parotid swelling or need for further sialendoscopy) and complications, DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers appraised the level of evidence using the Oxford Clinical Evidence-based Medicine (OCEBM) guidelines, extracted data, and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Weighted pooled proportion, 95% confidence interval (CI), and test results for heterogeneity and publication bias are reported. RESULTS: Seven studies were included. Levels of evidence varied from OCEBM level 3 to 4. The weighted pooled proportion of success rates for no further episodes by patient (n = 120) was 73% (95% CI: 64%-82%) and by gland (n = 165) 81% (95% CI: 75%-87%). The weighted pooled proportion of success rates for no further sialendoscopy by patient was 87% (95% CI: 81%-93%). Heterogeneity was low, and publication bias was not detected. There were no major complications reported. Surgical techniques and endoscopic findings are summarized. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this analysis suggest that sialendoscopy is effective and safe for the treatment of JRP and may be offered to appropriate patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".