Impact of systemic sclerosis oral manifestations on patients’ health‐related quality of life: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oropharyngeal features are frequent and often understated in the treatment clinical guidelines of systemic sclerosis in spite of important consequences on comfort, aesthetics, nutrition and daily life. The aim of this systematic review was to assess a correlation between the oropharyngeal manifestations of systemic sclerosis and patients' health-related quality of life. METHODS: ] up to January 2018, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Grey literature and hand search were also included. Study selection, risk bias assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa scale) and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO database with the code CRD42018085994. RESULTS: From 375 screened studies, 6 cross-sectional studies were included in the systematic review. The total number of patients included per study ranged from 84 to 178. These studies reported a statistically significant association between oropharyngeal manifestations of systemic sclerosis (mainly assessed by maximal mouth opening and the Mouth Handicap in Systemic Sclerosis Scale) and an impaired quality of life (measured by different scales). Studies were unequal concerning risk of bias mostly because of low level of evidence, different recruiting sources of samples and different scales to assess the quality of life. CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates a correlation between oropharyngeal manifestations of systemic sclerosis and impaired quality of life, despite the low level of evidence of included studies. Large-scaled studies are needed to provide stronger evidence of this association.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".