ReviewCureus2025
Comparison Between Adenoid-Nasopharynx Ratio and Endoscopic Examination of Adenoid Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Otitis media is a major health issue that usually results from adenoid hypertrophy. Diagnosis is based on symptoms, such as mouth breathing, and imaging studies, including lateral neck radiography (LNR). The adenoid-nasopharyngeal ratio (ANR) is one of the most important and widely used criteria in LNR studies. It helps estimate the real size of adenoid gland measurements. The present systematic review aimed to detect the accuracy of adenoid hypertrophy diagnosis by LNR and compare the same with the endoscopic method. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) guideline, a scoping evaluation of the articles was performed. The electronic databases considered were PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, from January 2004 to November 2024. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. A total of 20 articles were studied in detail, 13 full-text articles were further excluded, and finally, seven articles were found appropriate to be included in this review. The outcome of this systematic review has led to the conclusion that endoscopic examination, when employed for measurement of adenoid hypertrophy, has shown extremely positive and promising results as compared to cephalometric and head-neck radiographs.
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.