ReviewOTO open
Emerging Medications in Facial Nerve Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in OTO open. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review the literature for medical therapies that promote facial nerve regeneration and recovery. Data Sources: PubMed/Medline, Embase, and SCOPUS databases were searched for English-language studies published from inception through May 2025. Review Methods: Human studies evaluating the efficacy of medical therapy on facial nerve regeneration using validated facial nerve grading scales were included. Results: Nine studies were included in qualitative analysis, and 6 were included in a meta-analysis. Treatments included nimodipine (n = 6), pentoxifylline (n = 1), co-enzyme Q10 (n = 1), and extracellular vesicles (n = 1). All studies used HB score, and recovery was defined as HB score ≤3. Recovery was observed in 94% (95% CI:[90%, 97%]) of patients treated with nimodipine and 84% (95% CI: [70%, 97%]) of control patients; this was not statistically significant (OR 2.26, 95% CI: [0.97, 5.26]). Nimodipine significantly decreased HB score by 1.66 (95% CI: [0.81, 2.52]) before and after treatment. Pentoxifylline and extracellular vesicles demonstrated some efficacy, while co-enzyme Q10 was not efficacious. Conclusion: Nimodipine improved HB score but was not significantly associated with recovery to HB score ≤3 compared to controls. Pentoxifylline and extracellular vesicles may have some efficacy, but co-enzyme Q10 is not effective. Further research is required to uncover additional treatments.
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.