MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185799869 · doi:10.1111/coa.13839

The effectiveness of mitomycin C in Otolaryngology procedures: A systematic review

2021· review· en· W3185799869 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Luu, Paula Andrea Téllez, Neil K. Chadha

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Otolaryngology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINESystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialOtorhinolaryngologyMeta-analysisSurgeryCINAHLEvidence-based medicinePsychological interventionInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Many studies have evaluated the effectiveness of topical intraoperative mitomycin (MCC) usage in a wide range of otolaryngologic procedures with variable conclusions on effectiveness. This systematic review aims to provide a qualitative estimation of mitomycin C's treatment effectiveness in maintaining or preventing stenosis after surgical interventions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Following the PRISMA guideline, a comprehensive systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was performed including hand-searching and cross-reference checking. PARTICIPANTS: The search was limited to humans, sample size greater than two and study designs including a comparative arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures varied but included rates of restenosis, number of procedures, and post-surgical patency. RESULTS: A total of 571 unique abstracts and 109 full articles were reviewed. Seventy-seven studies were included in the final analysis. The available evidence ranged from case series to randomized control studies. Meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate due to heterogeneity of study design. Thirty-eight studies assessed the effective of MCC in dacryocystorhinostomy, which is reported in a separate meta-analysis. All other studies were categorized into otolaryngologic site and pathology including choanal atresia (n = 5), endoscopic sinus surgery (n = 12), airway procedures (n = 9), esophageal procedures (n = 8) and other (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: The published literature on the effectiveness of MMC was mixed, but suggested topical MMC improved surgical outcomes in many otolaryngologic procedures compared to controls. This was the first review to assemble literature on MMC usage for different surgical procedures. Comprehensive interpretation of the data was limited due to heterogeneity in primary outcome, procedure type and study quality. High-quality prospective and randomized controlled studies are required to further confirm the positive effect of MMC use on surgical 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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical OtolaryngologySame topicCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesFrench-language works237,207