ReviewArab journal of urology2023
Comparison of closure versus non-closure of the intraoral buccal mucosa graft site in urethroplasties. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To assess postoperative oral morbidity through meta-analysis of comparative studies for closure or non-closure of the buccal mucosa graft harvest area in patients undergoing urethroplasty. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in January 2022. Randomized controlled studies were assessed according to the Cochrane collaboration guidelines. Postoperative pain, difficult mouth opening, alteration of oral salivation, perioral numbness, and tolerance of solid and liquid intake results were assessed. Standard mean differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated for relative risk. Assessment was performed with subgroup analyses according to time points. Results: This meta-analysis included 373 patients in 7 randomized studies. The oral pain overall pooled effect estimates were investigated for the time points of day 0-1, day 3-7 and months 1-6. According to corrected effect estimates after sensitivity analysis, at the day 0-1 time point, the non-closure group was significantly superior compared to the closure group. But there was no difference at the other time points and in total. The overall pooled effect estimates for difficult mouth opening were investigated at 4 time points (day 1, days 5-7, months 1-3 and months 6). After sensitivity analysis, the overall pooled effect estimates at 6 months were significantly superior for the non-closure group. There were no significant differences between the non-closed and closed groups based on the overall pooled-effect estimates for oral numbness, salivary secretion alteration, and tolerance of liquid and solid food variants. Conclusion: The non-closure group was more advantageous in terms of oral pain in the early postoperative period. There were no differences between the groups in terms of alteration of salivation, oral numbness and toleration of liquid/solid food. Although the non-closed group seems more advantageous in terms of ease in mouth movements, more studies are needed to prove this.
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.