ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2023
Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands.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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Currently, there is no up-to-date guideline for the treatment of buccal mucosal squamous cell carcinoma (BMSCC) in the Netherlands. A questionnaire was used to investigate the opinions of Dutch head and neck surgeons on BMSCC of the cheek treatment. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all 91 head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands. Their opinions on surgical tumor-free margins, through-and-through defects, and indications for local adjuvant therapy were questioned. Results: The response rate was 51%. To prevent a through-and-through defect, 67% of the surgeons would accept a deep clinical (macroscopic) margin of ≤5 mm. The less adverse histological characteristics a tumor has, the less consensus there is amongst the surgeons for local adjuvant treatment in case of close margins. Conclusion: There is no consensus amongst Dutch head and neck surgeons about the optimal treatment for BMSCC of the cheek. There are different opinions on acceptable resection margins, indications for a through-and-through defect, and indications for adjuvant treatment. BMSCC of the cheek treatment should be more uniform and less surgeon dependent. Level of evidence: N/A.
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.