SynthesisBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Outcomes of endoscopic and open resection of sinonasal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sinonasal malignancy: ESMO-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.ESMO open · 2025Guideline
- The Selective Role of Open and Endoscopic Approaches for Sinonasal Malignant Tumours.Advances in therapy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of endoscopic and open resection of sinonasal malignancies.
methodsThe search was performed using PubMed (1950-2020), Embase (1974-2020), the Cochrane library, and the website clinicaltrials.gov. The hazard ratio, HR, 95% confidence interval, CI, of the rates of overall survival and disease-free survival and the demographic characteristics of the included studies were extracted and analyzed. Pooled analysis was conducted with the studies' individual patient data, using log-rank test, Kaplan-Meier survival, and Cox regression analysis.
resultsOf 1939 articles retrieved, 23 articles were included. Overall, 1373 cases were incorporated into the final analysis, 653 (47.56%) of which underwent the surgery through an endoscopic approach, whereas 720 (52.44%) cases utilized the open approach. The overall survival was comparable between endoscopic and open resection (HR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.65-1.07], p = 0.16; random effects analysis). Pooled analysis with Cox regression revealed signifcant differences in overall survival (HR = 0.568 [95%CI:0.380-0.849], p = 0.006) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.628 [95%CI:0.424-0.929], p = 0.02) between endoscopic and open approaches.
conclusionThe aggregated evidence suggests the survival outcome of endoscopic resection is comparable or greater than that of open resection of sinonasal malignancies.
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.