MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896453628 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0206028

Antegrade versus retrograde facial nerve dissection in benign parotid surgery: Is there a difference in postoperative outcomes? A meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2896453628 on OpenAlexaff
Mubarak Ahmed Mashrah, Taghrid Aldhohrah, Fahmi Ahmed Al-zubeiry, Lingjian Yan, Faez Saleh Al‐Hamed, Xiaopeng Zhao, Chaobin Pan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSpecialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China
KeywordsMedicineFacial nerveMeta-analysisSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyFacial paralysisParotidectomyDissection (medical)Confidence intervalRandomized controlled trialParotid glandIncidence (geometry)AnesthesiaInternal medicineDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in facial nerve dysfunction in studies that compared classical antegrade facial nerve dissection (AFND) versus retrograde facial nerve dissection (RFND) during benign parotid surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Google Scholar, Science Direct and relevant journals was undertaken up to June 27, 2018. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and retrospective studies aimed at comparing the effect of AFND vs. RFND during parotidectomy were included. The outcome measures included facial nerve dysfunction, Frey's syndrome, recurrence, silaocele, salivary fistula, operating time length of hospital stay, and estimated blood loss. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using either a fixed-effects or random-effects model. RESULTS: Ten studies; four RCTs and five retrospective studies were included. There were 570 patients (319 in RFND group and 251 in AFND group). 481 patients in 9 studies reported the incidence rate of facial nerve dysfunction. No statistical significant difference was observed between both groups concerning the occurrence of transient or permanent facial nerve paralysis (p = 0.44 and 0.11 respectively). One out 10 studies reported the incidence rate of sialocele, however no statistical difference was observed between the two techniques. There was reduction in the operative time (19.30 min), amount of blood loss (25.08 ml) and amount of healthy salivary tissues removed (12.20 mm) in RFND compared with AFND. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of the current review there is no evidence demonstrating a significant advantage of one approach over another, therefore, well-designed standardized RCTs are required.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.072
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.352
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.018 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207