Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39185377›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024

Dorsal Preservation versus Component Dorsal Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: An Assessment of Patient-reported Outcomes.

Jose A Foppiani, Ngamthoiba Joy, Angelica Hernandez Alvarez, Maria J Escobar-Domingo, Daniela Lee, Iulianna C Taritsa, Kirsten A Schuster, Nancy Maty Aneken, Bernard T Lee, Samuel J Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Impact of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty on the Internal Nasal Valve.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors.

Jose A FoppianiFrom the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Ngamthoiba JoyJalalabad Ragib Rabeya Medical College and Hospital, Jalalabad, Bangladesh.
Angelica Hernandez AlvarezFrom the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Maria J Escobar-DomingoFrom the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Daniela LeeFrom the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Iulianna C TaritsaFrom the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Kirsten A SchusterFrom the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Nancy Maty AnekenCentre Hospitalier Intercommunal Meulan les Mureaux, Les Mureaux, France.
Bernard T LeeFrom the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Samuel J LinFrom the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) discussing dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) and component dorsal hump reduction (CDHR) is scarce. This study aims to fill the gap in PROs between these techniques. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to investigate PROs of DPR and CDHR. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted using Stata statistical software. Results: A total of 25 studies met our inclusion criteria, pooling 1706 participants, with 13 studies on CDHP and 12 studies on DPR. Overall satisfaction rates were high, varying from 84% to 100% across studies. A subgroup analysis revealed that both techniques exhibited equally high satisfaction with no statistical differences ( Conclusion: Although PROs are comparable, the literature suggests that CDHR outcomes may be better than DPR in alleviating obstructive symptoms, potentially offering an evidence-based choice for addressing functional concerns in rhinoplasty.

Identifiers

PMID39185377
PMCPMC11343546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.