Outpatient vs inpatient parotidectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outpatient parotidectomy has emerged as a potential alternative to inpatient surgery for selected patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare postoperative complications between outpatient and inpatient parotidectomy. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed/MedLine, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar up to October 12, 2025. Observational and interventional studies comparing outpatient and inpatient parotidectomy in adults were included. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects model. Heterogeneity was quantified using I 2 , and certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE framework. Ten retrospective cohort studies were included. Outpatient surgery was associated with significantly lower odds of hematoma (0.36, 95 % CI: 0.17–0.77), permanent facial nerve weakness (OR = 0.10, 95 % CI: 0.06–0.17), and reoperation (OR = 0.32, 95 % CI: 0.23–0.44). No significant differences were observed for seroma, sialocele, infection, Frey's syndrome, fistula, or transient facial nerve weakness. All included studies were of moderate methodological quality, and the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Outpatient parotidectomy appears safe and feasible for selected patients, with complication rates comparable to inpatient surgery. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it