Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39604962›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2024

CO

Xuefei Pang, Haoshu Chi, Zongli Zhan, Zuyin Yu, Ming Cai

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2024. 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

5 authors.

Xuefei PangDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, National Center for Stomatology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
Haoshu ChiDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, National Center for Stomatology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
Zongli ZhanDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, National Center for Stomatology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
Zuyin YuDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, National Center for Stomatology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
Ming CaiDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, National Center for Stomatology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China. zidanecm500@126.com.

Funding

Cross-disciplinary Research Fund of Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong university School of Medicine JYJC202226)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent studies are controversial on the optimal treatment of postoperative scar treatment by cleft lip. Our objective is to elucidate the therapeutic effect of CO

methodsA systematic review was performed and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We searched five electronic databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and CNKI, from their inceptions until August 8, 2023) and independently assessed the methodological quality and bias risk of the included studies by two investigators using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Quality assessment of the certainty of evidence was performed based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. Weighted mean difference of Vancouver Scar Scale were calculated to conduct meta-analysis by Stata statistical software version 14. We also estimated the pool sensitivity as well as testing the possibility of publication bias.

resultsFive studies were included in this meta-analysis involving 255 subjects. Meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, CO

conclusionsPatients treated with CO

trial registrationidentifier CRD42023397042 (18/02/2023) [ https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ].

Indexed as

CicatrixCleft LipLasers, GasHumansPostoperative ComplicationsCleft lipLaserMeta-analysisScarSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39604962
PMCPMC11603913

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.