Outpatient vs inpatient parotidectomy: Systematic review and m<scp>eta‐analysis</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare complications between outpatient vs inpatient parotidectomy. A systematic review was performed to identify patients undergoing either outpatient or inpatient partodiectomy, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, using PUBMED, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane library. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Postoperative complications (hematoma, seroma/sialocele, salivary fistula formation, Frey syndrome, surgical site infection [SSI]) were compared. Our search yielded 4958 nonduplicate articles, of which 13 studies were ultimately included (11 retrospective cohort, 2 prospective cohort), encompassing a total of 1323 patients (outpatient 46.33% vs inpatient 53.67%). There was no significant difference in total complications, hematoma, seroma, salivary fistula, or SSI rates between outpatient and inpatient groups. No significant difference in total complications was found between outpatient and inpatient groups when stratified by surgical approach (partial/superficial and total parotidectomy). Our findings suggest outpatient parotidectomy may be as safe as inpatient parotidectomy in appropriately selected patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".