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