Skip to main content

Table 1 Basic characteristics of the included studies

From: Endoscope-assisted versus conventional neck dissection in patients with oral cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors Year Country Study Design Age
(Mean, yr)
Sex
(M/F)
Follow-up Incision type Incision Site Type of ND Sample Size*
(Mean, m) END CND
Fan et al. 2014 China RCT 51.7 21/23 34 Minimal SM Selective 23 21
Sannikorn et al. 2015 Thailand Retrospective 53.3 47/23 NR Hidden RAFL Selective 10 60
Fan et al. 2016 China RCT 53.6 38/22 NR Minimal SM Selective 31 29
Raj et al. 2016 India Retrospective NR 47/10 NR Minimal SS Selective 36 21
Pawar et al. 2020 India Retrospective 53.1 34/7 NR Hidden RAFL Selective/Radical 21 20
Shah et al. 2020 India Retrospective 49.4 66/6 24 Hidden RAFL Selective/Radical 32 48
           153 199
  1. yr, year; m, month; M, male; F, female; ND, neck dissection; SM, submandibular; RAFL, retroauricular or facelift; SS, suprasternal; NR, not reported
  2. *Number of sides of neck dissection