The Impact of Frenotomy on Gastroesophageal Reflux in Pediatric Ankyloglossia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review was conducted to assess if there are changes in gastroesophageal reflux (GER) outcomes after frenotomy in infants with ankyloglossia. METHODS: Systematic Review. CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, Pubmed, and Scopus were searched from inception to May 20, 2023. Inclusion criteria consisted of all study designs, infants ≤12 months of age with ankyloglossia, and use of quantitative GER measures (esophageal pH manometry (pH) or multi-channel intraluminal impedance (MII), and/or patient-reported symptom scores) pre- and post-frenotomy. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 37 articles screened, 7 met inclusion criteria (6 prospective cohort studies and 1 RCT). No studies utilized objective measures to quantify reflux, that is MII or pH. The number of infants with ankyloglossia ranged from 47 to 237 (mean age of 4.4-8.3 weeks). Qualitative analysis included all 7 studies which used the GIGER, I-GERQ-R, and GSQ-I scales to assess GER. Parent-reported GER scores decreased post-frenotomy. However, the lack of control groups in the prospective cohort studies precludes conclusive findings that changes are related to frenotomy. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the high risk of bias from limited sample sizes, poor methodology, and lack of adequate control groups. CONCLUSION: Limited work has been conducted on the relationship between frenotomy and GER in infants with ankyloglossia. The lack of high-quality studies precludes definitive conclusions, as GER symptoms are known to improve spontaneously with time. Future RCT studies are warranted to further elucidate the effect of frenotomy on symptoms of GER in infants with ankyloglossia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".