Needle aspiration vs incision and drainage: Recurrence
It is very uncertain whether needle aspiration changes primary outcome: recurrence rate compared with incision and drainage (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Needle aspiration vs incision and drainage Primary outcome: recurrence rate · patients older than 8 years with peritonsillar abscess It is very uncertain whether needle aspiration changes primary outcome: recurrence rate compared with incision and drainage (very low certainty). Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 3.74 | 10 studies · 612 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.