ReviewGalen medical journal2025
Impact of The COVID-19 Pandemic on Salivary Gland-related Healthcare Interventions; A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis :.
Review in Galen medical journal, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants has raised concerns regarding their potential impact on perioperative outcomes. Its effect on patients undergoing surgery for salivary gland diseases remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on salivary gland-related healthcare interventions, including cancer treatments, sialendoscopy procedures, and parotid surgery outcomes. Materials and Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2019-2025) for studies reporting pre- and during-COVID data. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool odds ratios (ORs) for intervention outcomes. Results: Four studies (n=7,740 participants) were included. The pooled OR for salivary gland interventions during versus pre-COVID was 1.08 (95% CI: 0.88-1.33, P=0.45), indicating no significant change, with moderate heterogeneity (I²=46%). Subgroup analyses revealed increased odds of wound dehiscence post-parotid surgery (OR=4.40, 95% CI: 1.18-16.40) but no significant differences in delayed cancer diagnosis or urgent sialendoscopy. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly alter overall salivary gland intervention rates or adverse events, though some procedural complications increased non-significantly. Limited evidence underscores the need for larger, standardized studies. While this shows that surgeons maintained quality of practice in this era during the COVID-19.
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.