MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397026098 · doi:10.1177/19160216241248666

Quality of Life After Head and Neck Cancer Surgery and Free Flap Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4397026098 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura-Élisabeth Gosselin, Noémie Villemure‐Poliquin, Nathalie Audet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Head and neck cancerMEDLINECINAHLPsychological interventionMeta-analysisSystematic reviewFree flapSurgeryAnxietyRadiation therapyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Different factors can affect the quality of life of patients treated for head and neck cancer undergoing major surgical intervention. However, it remains unclear which specific factors and what possible interventions could have the greatest influence on quality of life postoperatively for patients undergoing surgical resection with free flap reconstruction. The objective of our systematic review was to identify which factors, at the time of surgical treatment, are associated with a worse postoperative quality of life for patients undergoing surgical resection with free flap reconstruction for head and neck cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), from their inception through November 2021. We included peer reviewed studies that evaluated the impact of specific factors on quality of life for adult patients who underwent surgery with free flap reconstruction for head and neck cancer. Two reviewers independently screened citations for eligibility and extracted data. Risk of bias of each study was evaluated using the New-Castle Ottawa Scale. Vote counting and qualitative review were used to synthesize results. All relevant findings were reported. RESULTS: We initially identified 1971 articles. We included 22 articles in our systematic review, totaling 1398 patients. There was a high level of variability for factors evaluated throughout studies and many studies presented small sample sizes. However, some factors were associated with worse long-term quality of life, including older age, radiotherapy, higher tumor stage, dysphagia, anxiety as well as depressive symptoms. Very few articles analyzed their data for specific tumor subsites and the impact of psychosocial factors was rarely evaluated throughout studies. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with head and neck cancer requiring free flap reconstruction, some specific factors may correlate with changes in quality of life. However, these findings are based on very few and mostly underpowered studies. A better understanding of factors affecting quality of life could allow a more personalized and overall better quality of care for 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck SurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207