Complications in intraoral versus external approach for surgical treatment of Eagle syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The surgical treatment of Eagle syndrome involves an intra- or extraoral approach. This systematic review set out to consolidate current knowledge on the prevalence of complications associated with intraoral and external approaches. METHODS: Seven main electronic and two gray literature databases were searched. Studies were blindly selected by two reviewers based on pre-defined eligibility criteria. Studies evaluating any type of complication in the treatment of Eagle syndrome were considered eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for studies reporting prevalence data, case reports, and case series. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Software version 3.0 - Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA) was used to perform all meta-analyses. RESULTS: Out of 1728 articles found on all databases, 36 were included for qualitative analysis. Twenty were included for quantitative analysis and meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: In this study, the highest rate of complications was found in the intraoral approach.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| 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".