ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Pilot Study: Facial Trauma Reconstruction Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
Background: Facial trauma reconstruction involves a range of surgical approaches aimed at restoring function and aesthetics following injury. Understanding the prevalence of complications and treatment outcomes is crucial for enhancing patient care, even as surgical techniques continue to advance. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of various surgical interventions for facial trauma reconstruction. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched through December 1, 2024, for studies reporting outcomes after surgical facial trauma reconstruction in adults. Quantitative meta-analysis was restricted to orbital fracture studies reporting diplopia and/or enophthalmos, using a random-effects model. Other outcomes were synthesized narratively due to clinical heterogeneity. Results: A total of 1218 records were identified; 9 studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, and 7 contributed data to the orbital outcomes meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of diplopia was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.33; Conclusions: Orbital fracture reconstruction demonstrated descriptively low pooled prevalence estimates for diplopia and enophthalmos, although heterogeneity was substantial for diplopia and limits inferential interpretation.
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.