SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Intraparotid Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection for Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical management of head and neck cutaneous melanoma (HNCM) has evolved tremendously since sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has become the prominent tool of prognosis and staging. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficiency of intraparotid SLNB compared with a more extensive surgery of superficial parotidectomy (SP).
methodsThe electronic database of PubMed and Scopus were searched for publications until 10 March 2022. In addition, the study included data of patients from our institution who underwent cherry-picking procedures. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was calculated using the I
resultsThe pooled result regarding the rate of SLNB excision success was 97 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.95-0.99; p < 0.0001), and the pooled probability of a positive SLNB result was 16 % (95 % CI 0.12-0.20; p < 0.0001). Failure of SLNB had pooled results of 4 % (95 % CI 0.02-0.06; p < 0.0009). For SP, no study examining N0 HNCM patients has met the authors' inclusion criteria. Cherry-picking SLNB had temporary and permanent facial nerve paralysis relative risks (RRs) of 0.12 (95 % CI 0.06-0.27; p < 0.0001) and 0.46 (95 % CI 0.17-1.22; p < 0.0001), respectively, compared with historical data from four weighted meta-analyses of SP.
conclusionsThe data from this study suggest that intraparotid SLNB performed for N0 HNCM patients is a safe and reliable procedure, with very low complication rates. Failure of the procedure did not exceed 4 %. Therefore, intraparotid SLNB may be superior to an extensive surgery such as SP and should be examined in future prospective trials.
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.