1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Update on Noma: systematic review on classification, outcomes and follow-up of patients undergoing reconstructive surgery after Noma disease

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Noma is a significant yet neglected disease which affects some of the least developed countries in the world. The long-term benefit and safety of Noma surgical reconstructive missions have recently been under scrutiny due to a perceived lack of measurable outcomes and appropriate follow-up. This study analyses and reports on classifications, outcome measurement tools and follow-up for reconstructive surgery after Noma disease.

          Methods

          This systematic review was undertaken following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The three medical databases Medline, EMBASE and Web of Sciences were searched, articles published between 1 January 1983 and 15 April 2020 were included. All primary evidence on reconstructive surgery following Noma disease, reporting data on outcome after surgery, follow-up time and complications were included. Extracted data were aggregated to generate overall and population corrected mean outcomes and complication rates.

          Results

          Out of 1393 identified records, 31 studies including 1110 Noma patients were analysed. NOITULP and Montandon/WHO were the most commonly used classification systems. Mouth opening (MO) and complication rates were the two most often reported outcomes. Overall mean complication rate was 44%, reported by 24 studies. Postoperative MO was reported by eight publications, of which, five reported long-term outcomes (>12 months). Mean MO improved by 20 mm when compared with mean population weighted preoperative MO (7 mm). At long-term follow-up, MO decreased to 20 mm.

          Conclusions

          Studies reporting on neglected diseases in developing countries often lack methodological rigour. Surgeons should be mindful during patient examination by using a classification system that allows to compare preoperative versus postoperative state of disease. Short-term mission surgery is a vital part of healthcare delivery to underdeveloped and poor regions. Future missions should aim at sustainable partnerships with local healthcare providers to ensure postoperative care and long-term patient-oriented follow-up. A shift towards a diagonal treatment delivery approach, whereby local surgeons and healthcare staff are educated and empowered, should be actively promoted.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42020181931.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

            Because of specific methodological difficulties in conducting randomized trials, surgical research remains dependent predominantly on observational or non-randomized studies. Few validated instruments are available to determine the methodological quality of such studies either from the reader's perspective or for the purpose of meta-analysis. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate such an instrument. After an initial conceptualization phase of a methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a list of 12 potential items was sent to 100 experts from different surgical specialties for evaluation and was also assessed by 10 clinical methodologists. Subsequent testing involved the assessment of inter-reviewer agreement, test-retest reliability at 2 months, internal consistency reliability and external validity. The final version of MINORS contained 12 items, the first eight being specifically for non-comparative studies. Reliability was established on the basis of good inter-reviewer agreement, high test-retest reliability by the kappa-coefficient and good internal consistency by a high Cronbach's alpha-coefficient. External validity was established in terms of the ability of MINORS to identify excellent trials. MINORS is a valid instrument designed to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized surgical studies, whether comparative or non-comparative. The next step will be to determine its external validity when used in a large number of studies and to compare it with other existing instruments.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                5 August 2021
                : 11
                : 8
                : e046303
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science , University College London , London, UK
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Plastic Surgery , Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [3 ] Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences , Krems, Niederosterreich, Austria
                [4 ] Dr.Kubiena, Private Office , Vienna, Austria
                [5 ] departmentDepartment of Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery , Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Sophie Speiser; sophie.speiser.19@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7099-4395
                Article
                bmjopen-2020-046303
                10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046303
                8344268
                34353795
                5d24822e-a3fe-4337-b734-a33056093438
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 30 October 2020
                : 14 July 2021
                Categories
                Global Health
                1506
                1699
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                nutrition,public health,surgery,community child health,plastic & reconstructive surgery,paediatric oral & maxillofacial surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article