SynthesisJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale2022
Endoscope-assisted versus conventional neck dissection in patients with oral cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transoral robotic surgery in head and neck cancer: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Functional outcomes and quality of life in patients who undergone conventional or endoscopic/robotic retroauricular neck dissection: a case-control study.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison between a novel salivary marker and several clinical prognosticators in oral cavity cancer.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeck dissection is an integral component of the treatment of head and neck cancers. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the use of endoscope-assisted neck dissection (END) with conventional neck dissection (CND) in the existing English literature.
methodsA search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles reporting the results of the two techniques of neck dissection was completed independently by two individuals. The authors analyzed the data from each study using a random-effects model.
resultsThe pooled analysis demonstrated comparable lymph node yield, intraoperative blood loss, incidence of locoregional recurrence, and incidence of complications between the two groups. A significantly longer operative time but a shorter length of hospital stay was observed in the END group compared with the other group.
conclusionsCompared with conventional techniques, END offers similar oncologic outcomes and complication rates; however, it requires a longer operative time. Future studies with long-term follow-up and assessment of patient satisfaction are needed to confirm the clinical use of END.
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.