Postoperative nasal debridement following functional endoscopic sinus surgery, a systematic review of the literature

Green, R.; Banigo, Adonye; Hathorn, Iain

doi:10.1111/coa.12330

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the remaining 475 citations, 82 (17%) were review types other than SRs or MAs, including 34 (7%) literature reviews that were often collections of case reports. There were 236 (50%) SRs or MAs focused on interventions …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses Published in High‐Impact Otolaryngology Journals

Martinez-Monedero

Danielian

Angajala

et al. 2020

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the methodological quality of intervention-focused systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) published in high-impact otolaryngology journals. Data Sources Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Review Methods A comprehensive search was performed for SR and MA citations from 2012 to 2017 in the 10 highest impact factor otolaryngology journals. Abstracts were screened to identify published manuscripts in which the authors indicated clearly that they were performing an SR or MA. Applying a modified typology of reviews, 4 reviewers characterized the review type as SR, MA, or another review type. A simplified version of the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool was used to assess the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs and MAs that were focused on interventions. Results Search and abstract screening generated 499 manuscripts that identified themselves as performing an SR or MA. A substantial number (85/499, 17%) were review types other than SRs or MAs, including 34 (7%) that were literature reviews. In total, 236 SRs and MAs focused on interventions. Over 50% of these SRs and MAs had weaknesses in at least 3 of the 16 items in the AMSTAR 2, and over 40% had weaknesses in at least 2 of the 7 critical domains. Ninety-nine percent of SRs and MAs provided critically low confidence in the results of the reviews. Conclusion Intervention-focused SRs and MAs published in high-impact otolaryngology journals have important methodological limitations that diminish confidence in the results of these reviews.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses Published in High‐Impact Otolaryngology Journals

Martinez-Monedero

Danielian

Angajala

et al. 2020

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 10 potentially eligible studies that underwent full-text review we formally excluded five studies. Two were review articles (Green 2015;Rudmik 2011). We excluded the remaining three studies because they compared the e ects of di erent frequencies of debridement interventions on patient outcomes and did not compare debridement versus no debridement.…”

Section: Excluded Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent systematic review of postoperative nasal debridement following functional endoscopic sinus surgery has been published (Green 2015). This review includes four studies comparing debridement and no debridement (Alsa ar 2013; Bugten 2006/8 (as two studies); Nilssen 2002), and two studies comparing di erent debridement frequencies (Kemppainen 2008;Lee 2008).…”

Section: Agreements and Disagreements With Other Studies Or Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sinonasal debridement versus no debridement for the postoperative care of patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery

Tzelnick

Alkan

Leshno³

et al. 2018

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, no long-term statistical differences were seen in objective endoscopic or symptom-based scores. 74 Future studies are needed to further elucidate the role of postoperative debridement in endoscopic skull base surgery, and until that point, its use should be tailored to the individual patient and clinical situation.…”

Section: Postoperative Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic Endonasal Repair of Spontaneous and Traumatic Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea

Gonen

Monteiro

Klironomos

et al. 2015

Neurosurgery Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Postoperative nasal debridement following functional endoscopic sinus surgery, a systematic review of the literature

Abstract: Currently, there is no clear evidence for frequent postoperative debridement. Further well-designed RCTs are required to establish clear benefit, optimal frequency, extent and timing of debridement.

Cited by 18 publications

References 19 publications

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses Published in High‐Impact Otolaryngology Journals

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses Published in High‐Impact Otolaryngology Journals

Sinonasal debridement versus no debridement for the postoperative care of patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery

Endoscopic Endonasal Repair of Spontaneous and Traumatic Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About