Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36159386›Full record

ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2022

Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review.

Rohun Gupta, Jithin John, Noopur Ranganathan, Rima Stepanian, Monik Gupta, Justin Hart, Farideddin Nossoni, Kenneth Shaheen, Adam Folbe, Kongkrit Chaiyasate

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

10 authors.

Rohun GuptaOakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0003-1491-2441
Jithin JohnOakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan.
Noopur RanganathanOakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan.
Rima StepanianOakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan.
Monik GuptaThe University of Toledo Health Science Campus, Toledo, Ohio.
Justin HartDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Beaumont Health Systems, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Farideddin NossoniDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Beaumont Health Systems, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Kenneth ShaheenDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Beaumont Health Systems, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Adam FolbeDepartment of Otolaryngology, Beaumont Health Systems, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Kongkrit ChaiyasateDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Beaumont Health Systems, Royal Oak, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0003-3825-6784

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Open and closed rhinoplasty are two main approaches to perform nasal modifications. According to current literature, there is no current consensus among plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists on which technique is preferred in terms of aesthetic result, complications, and patient satisfaction. This study uses published research to determine whether open or closed rhinoplasty leads to superior patient outcomes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews were followed and a literature search was conducted in four databases based on our search strategy. Articles were then imported into COVIDENCE where they underwent primary screening and full-text review. Twenty articles were selected in this study after 243 articles were screened. There were 4 case series, 12 retrospective cohort studies, 1 prospective cohort study, 1 case-control, and 2 outcomes research. There were three cosmetic studies, eight functional studies, and nine studies that included both cosmetic and functional components. Sixteen studies utilized both open and closed rhinoplasty and four utilized open rhinoplasty. Both techniques demonstrated high patient and provider satisfaction and no advantage was found between techniques. Based on available studies, we cannot conclude if there is a preference between open or closed rhinoplasty in terms of which technique leads to better patient outcomes. Several studies determined that open rhinoplasty and closed rhinoplasty leads to comparative patient satisfaction. To make outcome reporting more reliable and uniform among studies, authors should look to utilize the Nasal Obstruction and Septoplasty Effectiveness scale and the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation.

Indexed as

cosmetic techniquesnasal surgical proceduresreconstructive surgical proceduresrhinoplasty

Identifiers

PMID36159386
PMCPMC9507448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.