SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2026
Early scar-directed interventions for thyroidectomy scars: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visible anterior neck scars after thyroidectomy and related cervicotomy procedures remain clinically important aesthetic and psychosocial concerns. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared randomized evidence for early scar-directed interventions, while separating surgical closure method trials from postoperative scar modulation strategies. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched independently from database inception to 17 June 2026. The primary outcome was scar quality at the longest available 3- to 12-month follow-up, assessed using POSAS, OSAS/PSAS, VSS/mVSS, SBSES, and MSS in a prespecified hierarchy. The primary connected network included six randomized trials comprising 408 unique participants and 469 analyzed scar/incision observations, with 10 direct comparisons and eight scar-directed treatment nodes. Laser plus steroid demonstrated a favorable low-certainty network estimate (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.35, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.83), as did laser/light-based protocols (SMD -0.95, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.50). Platelet-rich plasma also showed a favorable estimate (SMD -0.95, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.16), but this evidence was very uncertain because the node was supported by a single small study with methodological concerns. CINeMA certainty was low or very low across comparisons. Closure method trials were retained as a descriptive evidence map because their mechanisms, timing, and clinical decision context differed from scar-directed therapy. These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating and do not support definitive comparative superiority claims. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261427171, PROSPERO CRD420261427171.
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.