Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37719440›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2023

Objective quantitative methods to evaluate microtia reconstruction: A scoping review.

Yangyang Lin, Elsa M Ronde, Kevin E J van den Brule, Nadia Lachkar, F S van Etten-Jamaludin, Theo H Smit, Corstiaan C Breugem

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Yangyang LinDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elsa M RondeDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kevin E J van den BruleDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nadia LachkarDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
F S van Etten-JamaludinAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Research Support, Medical Library Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Theo H SmitDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Corstiaan C BreugemDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Commonly used methods to evaluate auricles are subjective and are therefore not specific, comprehensive, and precise nor effective in the assessment of microtia reconstruction outcomes. This scoping review aimed to summarize the objective methods for the accurate evaluation of microtia reconstruction. Methods: We performed a scoping review of publications that used objective measurement methods to evaluate outcomes of microtia reconstruction according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic literature search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, CNKI, and VIP databases, and literature references were screened for additional records. Studies that evaluated auricles after microtia reconstruction using quantitative anthropometric methods were included, and data on these methods were collected. Results: Twenty-five publications reported on quantitative objective outcome measurements. Thirteen studies evaluated auricular protrusion, three articles assessed the position or symmetry, and twelve studies reported on auricle size. The quantitative measurements of fine structures, such as the tragus and concha, were described in three studies. All described measurements used manual landmarking, where fifteen studies described well-defined landmarks, fifteen studies described poorly defined landmarks, and four studies used a combination of well and poorly defined landmarks. Conclusion: The objective evaluation of microtia reconstruction outcomes is hindered by significant heterogeneity of measurement methods. The measurement methods used for general auricular measurements (auricular protrusion, auriculocephalic angle, and size) used in microtia reconstruction were abundant, while measurements of auricular position and the fine structures of the auricle were limited. Three-dimensional imaging combined with computer analyses poses promising future alternatives.

Indexed as

MicrotiaObjective evaluationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37719440
PMCPMC10504461

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.