Treatment for parotid abscess: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A parotid abscess is a dangerous complication of parotitis. In this study, we aimed to define current treatment concepts for parotid abscess, focusing on different management options. The authors performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review across multiple databases including all original studies published until January 2021 focusing on treatment of parotid abscess. Studies specifying treatment modalities and treatment success rates were included based on abstract and full-text selection. The authors assessed study quality, demographics, success rates, management modalities and adverse events. Among 1,318 citations, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria. Twelve studies relied only on incision and drainage with antibiotic therapy; the remaining 6 compared different treatment modalities (incision and drainage versus exclusive medical therapy or ultrasound-guided drainage). Heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analysis of data. The review showed that antibiotics remain the mainstay of treatment for parotid abscess. Conversely, the role of incision and drainage, and aspiration should be studied further. The higher rate of complications following incision and drainage suggests a more conservative approach is needed. Incision and drainage remain the main salvage option for conservative treatment failures.
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) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".