SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2022
The Safety and Efficacy of Spreader Grafts and Autospreaders in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Effects of Spreader Graft Versus Spreader Flap on Nasal Valve Angle in Open Approach Rhinoplasty.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
- Mobile Bony Cap (Meysem Yorgun Technique): An Innovative Technique in Preservation Rhinoplasty for Crooked Nose Deformity.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
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
backgroundThe aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the evidence of surgical outcomes and complications of spreader grafts and autospreader flaps in the context of middle vault reconstruction after dorsal hump removal. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cinahl, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for Clinical and observational studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals with abstracts available that reported rhinoplasty employing either spreader graft or autospreader flap techniques and were published prior to March, 2021.
resultsFifty-two of 1129 relevant studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Thirty-four studies (65.4%) were related to spreader graft (SG), 10 (21.1%) studies of autospreader flap (AF) alone and 8 (13.5%) studies involving both grafts. Meta-analysis was performed on 17 studies reporting change in NOSE scores, with pooled effect of - 23.9 (95% CI, - 26.7 to - 21.1) points. High heterogeneity with I
conclusionBased on available data, change in NOSE scores after rhinoplasty was similar in procedures that used spreader graft only or autospreader flap only. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35031825What 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.