ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Single-Stage Versus 2-Stage Facial Reanimation With a Free Functional Muscle Flap: Protocol for a Systematic Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 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.
- Single-Stage Versus 2-Stage Facial Reanimation With a Free Functional Muscle Flap: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFacial paralysis is a condition that has several etiologies and is associated with significant physical and psychosocial complications. Classically, 2-stage facial reanimation was used to treat patients with unilateral facial paralysis; however, single-stage facial reanimation has seen an increase in use. Studies comparing both techniques are limited, and to the best of our knowledge, no systematic reviews have compared these techniques.
objectiveWe aim to perform a systematic review that explores how the outcomes of single-stage facial reanimation with a free functional muscle flap compare against those of 2-stage facial reanimation.
methodsThis systematic review protocol has been written according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) and NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines. The search strategy will involve 3 stages: electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection), trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov), and snowballing. Studies published from 1995 to 2025 will be screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted into a standardized spreadsheet, and the risk of bias and quality of evidence will be assessed. Two reviewers will screen, extract, and assess the included studies. Discrepancies will be discussed and rectified with a third reviewer, if needed. A narrative synthesis of the findings will be performed and presented with descriptive and statistical analyses, where possible, using GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software).
resultsThe review formally began in February 2025 and will be performed and reported according to this protocol and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A PRISMA flow diagram and checklist have been used to summarize the current search and study selection. A narrative synthesis and tables will be used to summarize the results of the included studies. Where possible, statistical analyses will be presented using graphs and figures. The final systematic review is expected to be published in December 2025.
conclusionsThis systematic review will aim to summarize the outcomes of the single-stage and 2-stage facial reanimation techniques and explore the differences between these surgical techniques, if any. The results will provide updated information for patients and clinicians. Moreover, the review may help identify potential areas for further research and policy development.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024556255; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024556255. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/64009.
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.