Sialendoscopy approach in treating juvenile recurrent parotitis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Juvenile recurrent parotitis (JRP) is characterized by recurrent episodes of painful parotid swelling in children. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic effectiveness of sialendoscopy in children affected by JRP. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library until April 2022, without language restrictions or specified start date. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Our review included 524 patients and 646 sialendoscopies. The sample sizes of the different studies ranged from 3 to 77 subjects. Most authors performed sialendoscopy under general anesthesia. The mean percentage of recurrences observed was 25.1% (95% confidence intervals) (CI 23.6-26.6). There was a statistically significant relationship between the number of attacks/year and recurrences (p < 0.05). The percentage of recurrences according to the type of irrigation/flushing used ranged from 22.2% to 25.2%, with no significant differences between the use of corticosteroids alone (25.2% of recurrences), corticosteroids plus antibiotics (25% of recurrences) or saline alone (22.2% of recurrences). Sialoendoscopy has proved in all cases to be a valid method for the diagnosis of JRP, but it does not allow a reliable differential diagnosis with other autoimmune parotitis such as Sjögren's syndrome. CONCLUSION: According to our results, parotid sialoendoscopy was 74.9% effective as a primary treatment in the prevention of recurrent symptoms in JRP. The type of ductal irrigation used did not significantly influence the prognostic outcome.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".