SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Submandibular gland preservation versus removal during neck dissection in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Submandibular gland (SMG) resection is traditionally included in level IB neck dissection for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), although isolated SMG metastases are rare. Routine removal may contribute to xerostomia and a reduced quality of life. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed whether SMG preservation compromises oncologic outcomes or improves functional outcomes. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane guidelines, with prospective registration in PROSPERO (CRD420251027851). The literature search included PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library up to March 2025. Eligible studies compared oncologic or functional outcomes after SMG preservation versus resection in OSCC. Risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool, and evidence certainty was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: Eight studies comprising 1,220 patients met the inclusion criteria. Preservation of the SMG did not increase locoregional recurrence (RR 1.05, p = 0.81), affect disease-specific survival (RR 0.86, p = 0.69), or alter overall survival (RR 0.80, p = 0.57) compared with gland resection. Oncologic safety was maintained in early-stage OSCC (T1-T2 N0). Xerostomia outcomes were variably reported across four studies; while some studies suggested a possible trend toward reduced postoperative dry mouth with SMG preservation, findings were inconsistent due to differences in xerostomia assessment methods and patient cohorts. Conclusion: Based on low-certainty evidence, SMG preservation during neck dissection appears not to compromise oncologic outcomes in selected cases. However, the impact on xerostomia remains inconclusive given the heterogeneity among studies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251027851, identifier CRD420251027851.
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.