SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Endoscopic surgery versus various open approaches in esthesioneuroblastoma: a systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB) is treated using several open surgery (OpS) methods, with or without endoscopic assistance ( ± E-ass) or endoscopic surgery (ES). This systematic review compared the results with various approaches using OpS ± E-ass and ES. Data sources: A systematic PubMed/Medline search was conducted for the period 1990-2023. Review methods: Keywords were "esthesioneuroblastoma" or "olfactory neuroblastoma" and "surgery," "surgical," "resection," "approach," "open," and "endoscopic." Studies/case series and case reports were included. Results with OpS ± E-ass (stratified into various approaches) were compared with ES results. Parameters assessed were follow-up period, frequencies of advanced tumor stages, Hyams grade III-IV tumors, negative margins/gross total resection, postoperative complication rates, preoperative/postoperative radiation therapy/chemotherapy, primary tumor progression, and frequency of/time to first recurrence. Results: A total of 88 studies/case series or single cases/case reports (SC/CR) with results after OpS ± E-ass (850 cases) and 84 with results after ES (584 cases) were included. Compared with OpS ± E-ass, after ES, the average follow-up was significantly shorter ( Conclusions: These data support that ES can be regarded as the surgical method of first choice in less advanced ENB but may also be a good choice in carefully selected advanced ENB.
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.