Trial reportClinical and experimental medicine2024
Surgical advantage of modified labial salivary gland biopsy using chalazion forceps: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Clinical and experimental medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Labial salivary gland biopsy (LSGB) is one of the specific diagnostic criteria for primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). In traditional LSGB, there is no lower lip fixation device, the field of view is unclear due to intraoperative bleeding, and the incision is large, which is unfavourable for healing. The use of auxiliary devices to improve the shortcomings of traditional LSGB technique would be meaningful. Therefore, this case-control study aimed to assess the value of modified LSGB using chalazion forceps as compared with traditional LSGB. After obtaining written informed consent from all participating parents and patients, we randomly assigned 217 eligible participants to undergo LSGB using chalazion forceps (n = 125) or traditional LSGB (n = 92). The outcome variables were surgical time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding, pain score at 24 h after surgery, incision healing status at 7 days after surgery, gland collection, and pathological results. The final diagnostic results of the two surgical methods were compared, and the match rates between the pathological results and the final clinical diagnoses were compared between the two groups. The data were analysed using parametric and nonparametric tests. Compared with the traditional group, the modified group had a smaller incision, shorter operative time, less blood loss, lower 24 h pain score, and better Grade A incision healing at 7 days after surgery (p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the patients in the two surgical-method groups in terms of the positive biopsy results and the final diagnosis based on expert opinions (p > 0.05). By multivariable regression analysis, only a focus score (FS) of ≥ 1 (p < 0.01), dry eye disease (p < 0.05) and anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) titre ≥ 1:320 (p < 0.05) were correlated with the diagnosis of pSS. The positive biopsy results of patients in the different surgical-method groups had a biopsy accuracy of > 80.0% for the diagnosis of pSS. The positive biopsy results in the different surgical-method groups were consistent with the expert opinions and the 2016 ACR-EULAR primary SS classification criteria. The modified LSGB using an auxiliary chalazion forceps offers a good safety with a small incision, shorter operative time, less bleeding, reduced pain and a low incidence of postoperative complications.The match rate of LSGB pathological results of the proposed surgical procedure with the final diagnosis of pSS is high.
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.