Investigation of the small-study effect in a recent meta-analysis of the left‐sided aortic arch variants

Kruepunga, Nutmethee; Yurasakpong, Laphatrada; Suwannakhan, Athikhun

doi:10.1007/s00276-022-02995-8

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The funnel plots were statistically asymmetrical for PAD types C, D, and E, suggesting that their prevalences were indeed influenced by the small-study effect. These findings indicate that larger samples should be used to estimate these types of arch defects accurately to avoid the small-study effect, as demonstrated in some recent anatomical meta-analyses [30,31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Radiological Study of Atlas Arch Defects with Meta-Analysis and a Proposed New Classification

Suphamungmee,

Yurasakpong,

Poonudom

et al. 2023

Asian Spine J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study consists of a retrospective cohort study, a systematic review, and a meta-analysis which were separately conducted. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of atlas arch defects, generate an evidence-based synthesis, and propose a common classification system for the anterior and combined atlas arch defects. Atlas arch defects are well-corticated gaps in the anterior or posterior arch of the atlas. When both arches are involved, it is known as a combined arch defect. Awareness of these defects is essential for avoiding complications during surgical procedures on the upper spine. The prevalence of arch defects was investigated in an open-access OPC-Radiomics (Radiomic Biomarkers in Oropharyngeal Carcinoma) dataset comprising 606 head and neck computed tomography scans from oropharyngeal cancer patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to generate prevalence estimates of atlas arch defects and propose a classification system for the anterior and combined atlas arch defects. The posterior arch defect was found in 20 patients (3.3%) out of the 606 patients investigated. The anterior arch defect was not observed in any patient, while a combined arch defect was observed in one patient (0.2%). A meta-analysis of 13,539 participants from 14 studies, including the present study, yielded a pooled-posterior arch defect prevalence of 2.07% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22%–2.92%). The prevalences of anterior and combined arch defects were 0.00% (95% CI, 0.00%–0.10%) and 0.14% (95% CI, 0.04%–0.25%), respectively. The anterior and combined arch defects were classified into five subtypes based on their morphology and frequency. The present study showed that atlas arch defects were present in approximately 2% of the general population. For future studies, larger sample sizes should be used for studying arch defects to avoid the small-study effect and to predict the prevalence accurately.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%