ArticleBMJ open2024
Ultrasound-guided puncture drainage versus surgical incision drainage for deep neck space abscesses: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of Deep Neck Infection Associated with Descending Necrotizing Mediastinitis: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDeep neck space abscesses (DNAs) are serious surgical emergencies, associated with life-threatening complications. Surgical incision and drainage combined with antibiotics is the main treatment for DNAs, but drawbacks still exist. Ultrasound-guided puncture drainage is an alternative treatment for some DNAs with limited clinical evidence. Hence, the optimal drainage technique for the treatment of DNAs remains unclear. Therefore, we will perform a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficacy of ultrasound-guided puncture drainage for DNAs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, VIP database and trial registry databases will be searched from inception to September 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials of patients diagnosed with DNAs accepting ultrasound-guided puncture drainage. The primary outcome will be the length of hospital stay. The secondary outcomes will be the cure rate, incidence of retreatment, complications and overall cost to the healthcare system. Fixed-effects or random-effects model will be used according to the statistical heterogeneity. Mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data and risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and trial sequential analysis will be conducted to evaluate the evidence quality and control the random errors. Funnel plots and Egger's regression test will be performed to evaluate publication bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for this systematic review protocol. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023441031.
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.