Repair of the Lateral Nasal Wall in Nasal Airway Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: While functional rhinoplasty has been broadly studied, to our knowledge no systematic review and meta-analysis of lateral wall repair has been done previously. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of repair of the lateral nasal wall in adult patients with nasal airway obstruction. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Central, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and reference lists were searched for clinical and observational studies. STUDY SELECTION: The selection criteria were defined according to the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) framework. The relevant studies were selected by 2 independent reviewers based on the studies' abstracts and full texts. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using standardized lists chosen by the authors according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The effect sizes were first calculated for each study and then pooled together using random effects synthesis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated by the Egger test. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The results were reported as pooled row mean differences in changes from preoperative to postoperative Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scores at different times of follow-up (≤3 months, >3 to 6 months, and >6 months). RESULTS: Of 1522 initial records, 10 studies were considered relevant-all of them observational. The pooled study sample included 324 participants. When combining all the repeated measures together, the pooled effect size for functional rhinoplasty was -47.7 (95% CI, -53.4 to 42.1) points on the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale with high heterogeneity of 72%. The pooled effect size outcomes were similar in short- (-45.0 points [95% CI, -47.8 to -42.2 points]), mid- (-48.4 points [95% CI, -52.5 to -44.4 points]), and long-term (-49.0 points [95% CI, -62.1 to -35.8 points]) follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The pooled effect size of 10 observational studies supported the effectiveness of functional rhinoplasty for the treatment of nasal airway obstruction caused by lateral nasal wall insufficiency. To improve the level of evidence, randomized clinical trials are needed. 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".