MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792826488 · doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0036

Repair of the Lateral Nasal Wall in Nasal Airway Obstruction

2018· review· en· W2792826488 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Facial Plastic Surgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyRhinoplastyMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryPublication biasCINAHLMEDLINEPopulationSample size determinationSurgerySystematic reviewStudy heterogeneityRandom effects modelSeptoplastyNoseInternal medicinePsychological interventionStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.248 · 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