Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36806025›Full record

ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2023

Systematic mapping review of interventions to prevent blood loss, infection and relapse in orthognathic surgery.

J Bendersky, M Uribe, M Bravo, J-P Vargas, J Villanueva, G Urrutia, X Bonfill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors.

J BenderskyAmerico Vepsucio Norte 2101 CP 7630595, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile jbendersky@uc.cl.
M Uribe
M Bravo
J-P Vargas
J Villanueva
G Urrutia
X Bonfill

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic mapping review aims to identify, describe, and organize the currently available evidence in systematic reviews (SR) and primary studies regarding orthognathic surgery (OS) co-interventions and surgical modalities, focusing on the outcomes blood loss, infection and relapse. MATERIAL AND

methodsA comprehensive search strategy was performed to identify all SRs, randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluate surgical modalities and perioperative co-interventions in OS that evaluate the outcomes blood loss, infection and relapse, regardless of language or publication date. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Lilacs, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. In addition, grey literature was screened.

results27 SRs and 150 primary studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 91 from SRs, and 59 from our search strategy. Overall, the quality of the SRs was graded as "Critically low," and only two SRs were rated as "High" quality. 11 PICO questions were extracted from SRs and 31 from primary studies, which focused on osteosynthesis methods, surgical cutting devices, use of antibiotics, and induced hypotension. In addition, evidence bubble maps for each outcome were created to analyze in a visual manner the existing evidence.

conclusionsFuture primary and secondary high-quality research should be addressed focused on the eight knowledge gaps identified in this mapping review. We concluded that the evidence mapping approach is a practical methodology for organizing the current evidence and identifying knowledge gaps in OS, helping to reduce research waste and canalize future efforts in developing studies for unsolved questions.

Indexed as

Orthognathic SurgeryHumansSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID36806025
PMCPMC9985940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.