ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Minimally invasive vs. traditional tonsillectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate both the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive tonsillar surgical techniques for chronic tonsillitis. Methods: A comprehensive systematic literature search was performed across four English databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that exclusively enrolled patients undergoing tonsillectomy only. All included studies compared minimally invasive tonsillectomy with cold dissection tonsillectomy for chronic tonsillitis, with publication dates up to December 25, 2025. Following a rigorous screening process, meta-analyses were carried out using Stata 17.0 and RevMan 5.2.1 software. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD420261292929. Results: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials comprising 1528 patients were included in this study. Compared with cold dissection, minimally invasive surgery tended to improved operative efficiency (MD = -10.48, 95% CI [-13.54, -7.42], Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery may be associated with shorter operative time and reduced intraoperative bleeding, but these findings should be interpreted with caution due to unresolved heterogeneity, broad intervention grouping. Further research is needed to confirm these potential benefits and clarify the impact on postoperative hemorrhage. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD420261292929.
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.