ReviewJPRAS open2026
Otoplasty for prominent ear: A systematic review of surgical techniques.
Review in JPRAS open, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prominent ear is a common auricular malformation that can have long-term psychosocial consequences on affected individuals. Otoplasty remains the standard surgical corrective treatment; however, the optimal technique has long been debated, with >200 methods described in the literature. This systematic review, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the available evidence on the most effective otoplasty approach. The outcomes assessed across different techniques (exclusive suture, exclusive cartilage-scoring, incisionless, suture + flap, suture + cartilage-scoring, and cartilage-scoring + flap hybrids) included: a) number of patients suffering a complication, b) recurrence, c) reoperation, d) infection, e) keloid or hypertrophic scar formation, and f) haematoma. A search of PubMed and MEDLINE identified 412 papers. Following PICOT framework-guided screening, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quality assessment, 22 studies were included: 19 retrospective and three prospective cohort studies. Current medical literature suggests that suture + cartilage-scoring and cartilage-scoring + flap hybrid methods, may be associated with lower rates of recurrence, and reoperation when compared to single-technique or suture + flap approaches. However, high-quality, long-term randomised control trials are required to determine the superior technique for otoplasty.
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.