Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36199467›Full record

ReviewAnnals of maxillofacial surgery

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Rhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Scale.

Riccardo Nocini, Salvatore Chirumbolo, Ali Pirayesh, Eqram Rahman, Krishan Mohan Kapoor, Gulser Caliskan, Dario Bertossi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Oral Isotretinoin Treatment in Rhinoplasty: A Review.World journal of plastic surgery · 2023
    Review
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

7 authors.

Riccardo NociniDepartment of Surgery, Dentistry, Paediatrics and Gynaecology, Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Salvatore ChirumboloDepartment of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Unit of Human Anatomy, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Ali PirayeshDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Amsterdam Plastic Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Eqram RahmanDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Krishan Mohan KapoorDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Anticlock-Age Reversal Clinic and Medispa, Chandigarh, India.
Gulser CaliskanDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, Unit of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Dario BertossiDepartment of Surgery, Dentistry, Paediatrics and Gynaecology, Unit of Maxillo-Facial Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The purpose was to evaluate the role and impact of the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation (ROE) in rhinoplasty. Objectives: To systematically review the ability of ROE to assess rhinoplasty outcome in the very recent surgical approaches. Data Sources: Searching MESH terms "rhinoplasty" and "rhinoplasty and ROE" on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, and other major literature databases. Study Eligibility Criteria: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses model was adopted for eligibility criteria. Participants and Interventions: A first large screening on 1,660 papers allowed the final retrieval of 896 reports, of which only 101 were eligible for all the inclusion criteria, which allowed finally to select a group of 12 reports published in the time range 2018-2021. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Meta-regression with Durbin-Watson test, checking of meta-analysis bias with Rosenthal's estimator, and heterogeneity through the Results: Twelve eligible and qualified papers were included in the meta-analysis, out of 1,263 patients, from 1,660 papers. ROE confirmed previous reports about its ability to discriminate preoperative from postoperative outcome (50/100), as from the different rhinoplasty approaches, a value very close to the functional Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale. This study strengthens the role of ROE in the evaluation of rhinoplasty outcomes encouraging further research to improve ROE scale on different cultural habits and geographical areas. Limitations: The main limitations were due to the weak inclusion and exclusion criteria, methodological flaws with the statistical analysis, and poor data synthesis and evaluation in many papers about ROE.

Indexed as

Meta-analysisrhinoplastyrhinoplasty outcome evaluationscoringsurvey

Identifiers

PMID36199467
PMCPMC9527829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.