SynthesisMedicine2026
Meta-analysis of the skin redraping method and the Z-plasty method in the correction of epicanthus.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. 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.
- Efficacy and safety of autologous cell-based therapies for atrophic acne scar treatment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with in-depth methodological and clinical insights.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpicanthus, a prevalent aesthetic concern in Asian populations, can be surgically corrected using various techniques. The skin redraping method and Z-plasty are 2 widely adopted approaches. This study aimed to conduct a systematic meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the clinical efficacy and outcomes of these 2 dominant surgical methods for epicanthus correction.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP databases from their inception through December 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies directly comparing skin redraping and Z-plasty for congenital epicanthus were eligible. Primary outcomes included postoperative change in intercanthal distance (ICD), scar assessment via the Vancouver Scar Scale at 6 months, patient satisfaction, recurrence rate, and incidence of complications. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Statistical synthesis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 and R metafor package, employing fixed-effect or random-effects models based on heterogeneity (I2 statistic).
resultsFourteen studies (1539 patients) were included. All included studies were published in Chinese. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative ICD reduction (mean difference = 0.56 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.20 to 2.33, P = .53, I2 = 98%). Z-plasty yielded significantly better 6-month Vancouver Scar Scale scores (mean difference = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.57, P < .00001) and higher patient satisfaction (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.18-0.84, P = .02). Recurrence was significantly lower with Z-plasty (OR = 13.73, 95% CI: 2.53-74.49, P = .002), although this analysis was based on only 3 studies. Complication rates were similar (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.65-3.23, P = .36).
conclusionBoth techniques effectively reduce ICD with comparable safety. Within the limited follow-up period of the included studies (up to 6 months), Z-plasty was associated with better scar appearance, higher satisfaction, and lower recurrence. The high heterogeneity and exclusive inclusion of Chinese studies necessitate cautious interpretation. Future multicenter RCTs with longer follow-up and standardized technique reporting are warranted.
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.