Quality of life before and after different treatment modalities in peripheral facial palsy: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was conducted to investigate the effect of peripheral facial palsy (PFP) on the quality of life (QoL). Secondly, we investigated if different treatment modalities influence the QoL of patients with PFP. METHODS: A multidatabase systematic literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library from the earliest date of each database up to August 2015. The inclusion criteria were either prospective and/or retrospective cohort trials and/or case series measurement of QoL before and after treatment, patients with PFP (irrespective of etiology), and various treatment modalities (medication, physical therapy, botulinum toxin injections, and several types of surgical procedures). Two authors rated the methodological quality of the included studies independently using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for nonrandomized studies. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight studies were found, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were assessed to be of fair to good methodological quality. The Cohen's kappa (between author r.e.l. and s.p.) was 0.68. Eight different questionnaires were used to measure QoL, of which the Facial Clinimetric Evaluation scale was used most frequent. After different modalities, all studies showed significant improvements in terms of QoL. CONCLUSIONS: This study found significant improvement when measuring QoL before and after different treatment modalities in patients with peripheral facial palsy. Future research should focus on patients with PFP due to the same etiology and use of valid QoL instruments for outcome measures. Laryngoscope, 127:1044-1051, 2017.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".