Effect of prosthetic rehabilitation on oral health-related quality of life of patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To review the evidence on the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of head and neck cancer survivors after they have been treated with prosthetic rehabilitation. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were utilized as the framework in designing, implementing and reporting the current review. Search of literature was done electronically using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Intervention component of the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) for the current review was the prosthetic rehabilitation performed on the surgically treated head and neck cancer patients (participants); and outcome was the OHRQoL. Methodological index for non-randomized studies was the assessment tool utilized to report on the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: The initial search had identified 799 records and the final level of screening included eight articles. Six studies were experimental in design and two were cross-sectional. Cumulative sample of the head and neck cancer cases from the selected studies was 354, with 35.9 (14.9) and 72.4 (8.7) years as the highest and lowest mean age recorded from the included studies. More male cases (69.5%) were reported than female cases (30.5%) and squamous cell carcinoma was the most commonly diagnosed malignancy. Maxillary reconstruction and implant supported prosthesis were the choice of treatment for most of the cases. Different versions of oral health impact profile (OHIP) constructs were preferred by six studies. While, one study utilized University of Washington quality of life questionnaire and the other utilized European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life Questionnaire. Arguably, three studies had compared the OHRQoL scores of head and neck cancer patients with healthy counterparts through a follow-up period ranging from 1 to 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The included studies did not provide substantial evidence to demonstrate the improvement in OHRQoL of head and neck cancer patients after prosthetic rehabilitation. More prospective studies are needed with representative sample, robust methodology and a longer follow-up period. The current study provides a direction to the clinical decision-making process and the epidemiological research to enhance the patients and public health-related outcomes.
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".