A Meta-analysis of complications of orbital blowout fracture by surgical approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM:To investigate the effect of conjunctival approach and skin approach on postoperative complications in orbital blowout fracture through Meta-analysis. METHODS: Search literatures in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, OVID, Chinese biomedical literature database, Weipu, Wanfang and CNKI database from the establishment of the database to May 30, 2018. The main contents included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies about comparing the postoperative complications of orbital blowout fracture through the transconjunctival approach and subciliary approach. Meta-analysis of the incidence of complications was performed using Review Manager 5.3 statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 7 cohort studies were included. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale(NOS)score showed that the quality of the included literature was above 6 points. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in odds ratio(OR)between the transconjunctival approach group and subciliary approach group \〖<i>OR</i>=0.74, 95% <i>CI </i>(0.44-1.24),<i> P=</i>0.25\〗. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the Meta-analysis were stable and reliable. Funnel plot analysis showed that there might be publication bias in the included literature. CONCLUSION: The effect of skin approach and conjunctival approach on the incidence of postoperative complications of orbital blowout fractures is not significant. The two approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages. It is necessary to combine the clinical practical considerations to select the most suitable surgical 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.021 | 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".