Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33663028›Full record

ArticleThe world journal of men's health2022

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Buccal Mucosal Graft Harvest Site Non-Closure

Eu Chang Hwang, Adam de Fazio, Kallie Hamilton, Caitlin Bakker, Joseph J Pariser, Philipp Dahm

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The world journal of men's health, 2022. 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Substitution urethroplasty for posterior urethral stenosis.Translational andrology and urology · 2025
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Eu Chang HwangDepartment of Urology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hwasun, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2031-124X
Adam de FazioDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-5674
Kallie HamiltonMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Specialty Care, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6138-2693
Caitlin BakkerHealth Sciences Libraries, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4154-8382
Joseph J PariserDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9136-7956
Philipp DahmDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2819-2553
University of Minnesota · USChonnam National University Hwasun Hospital · KRMinneapolis VA Health Care System · US

Funding

Chonnam National University HCRI20003Chonnam National University Hwasun hospital Research Institute of Clinical Medicine HCRI20003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the effects of buccal mucosal graft site non-closure MATERIALS AND

methodsWe included randomized controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were male over the age of 18 with urethral stricture disease requiring reconstruction with buccal mucosal graft harvest. Primary outcomes of the review were postoperative oral pain, need for secondary oral procedures and cosmetic defects.

resultsWe included 5 studies with 346 randomized patients with urethral strictures, of whom 260 completed the trials. In terms of primary outcomes, non-closure graft site may reduce oral pain on postoperative day #1 (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.24 lower; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 lower to 0.12 higher; low certainty evidence [CoE]) but we are uncertain how this impacts pain on postoperative days 3 to 6 (SMD 0.35; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.81 higher; very low CoE). We are also very uncertain as to how it affects the need for secondary oral procedures (risk ratio [RR] 0.22; 95% CI 0.01 to 4.28; very low CoE). Non-closure may increase the risk of cosmetic defects (RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.93 to 6.22; low CoE).

conclusionsThis review describes the trade-off for buccal mucosal graft site non-closure

Indexed as

Mouth mucosaSystematic reviewTransplantsUrethral stricture

Identifiers

PMID33663028
PMCPMC8761239
OpenAlexW3133018738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.