Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31037051›Full record

ReviewSeminars in plastic surgery2019

Prosthetic Reconstruction of Orbital Defects.

Aurora Vincent, Scott Kohlert, Sameep Kadakia, Raja Sawhney, Yadranko Ducic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in plastic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Aurora VincentOtolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington.
Scott KohlertDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Sameep KadakiaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.
Raja SawhneyFacial Plastics, University of Gainesville, Florida.
Yadranko DucicOtolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery Associates, Fort Worth, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orbital and craniomaxillofacial defects, in general, are best approached preoperatively by a multidisciplinary team with a clear reconstructive plan in place. Orbital defects result from a myriad of underlying diseases and injuries, and reconstruction after orbital evisceration, enucleation, or exenteration can pose a challenge to the reconstructive team. Reconstruction of orbital injuries with orbital implants and prostheses can lead to acceptable aesthetic outcomes, and the reconstructive surgeon should be familiar with current orbital implants and prostheses. Herein, the authors review terminology and classifications of orbital defects, different types of orbital implants, advantages and disadvantages of different orbital implant reconstructive options, types of orbital prostheses, and pros and cons of different prosthetic options.

Indexed as

orbital defectsorbital implantprosthetic

Identifiers

PMID31037051
PMCPMC6486384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.