ArticleMedicine2018
New methods for specialized subjective and high-precision objective evaluation of constricted ears: A pilot study.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human Auricles Are Not Symmetrical: A Comparative Study Using Landmark-Based and Surface-Based Software.The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2025Article
- A three-dimensional algorithm for precise measurement of human auricle parameters.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Standardized measurement of auricle: A method of high-precision and reliability based on 3D scanning and Mimics software.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of therapy on constricted ears are evaluated subjectively and objectively. However, previous methods are not specific, comprehensive, precise, or effective in diagnosing and predicting surgical outcomes. This study aimed to present a personalized, subjective evaluation scale and new objective indices utilizing a digital method for the accurate evaluation of constricted ears.Nine consecutive patients with constricted ears were selected. To perform subjective evaluations, the patients' parents were contacted by telephone within 3 to 6 months after surgery and asked to answer questions using a scale. To perform objective evaluations, the constricted and normal ears of each patient were scanned using a 3-dimensional scanner before and 14 days after surgery. The vertical height of the auricle (VHA), transverse diameter of the auricle, minimum length of the helix (MLH), length of the inner auricle (LIA), and transverse diameter of the inner auricle were calculated using Mimics software. The Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test was used for data analysis.High satisfaction scores were reported. The folds of the ear and helix had the highest median scores, whereas the crus of the antihelix had the lowest. The difference in LIA and postoperative MLH was greater than that in VHA and preoperative MLH. The mean values of the 5 indices of the normal ear were greater than those of the indices of the preoperative constricted ear (P < .05).The specialized subjective scale reported in this study allows comprehensive and personalized assessment of constricted ears. The new objective indices are more effective than existing methods and the digital measurement method is precise and reliable. These methods will allow the treatment of constricted ears to be better evaluated, leading to improvements in patient management and treatment selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.