SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Current evidence and future perspectives in the treatment of head and neck vagal paragangliomas: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVagal paragangliomas (VPGs) are rare neuroendocrine tumors, typically benign but with unpredictable growth and local invasiveness. Their management is debated, particularly in asymptomatic or elderly patients, due to the lack of clear predictive indicators for progression and treatment response. This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical features and treatment outcomes of VPGs.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature, screening studies at multiple levels. A total of 41 articles were included, comprising data from 501 patients. Treatments were categorized as surgery, radiotherapy (RT), both, or observation (wait-and-scan). Due to study heterogeneity and generally low evidence levels, a statistical comparison between treatment modalities was not feasible.
resultsAmong 501 patients, 325 underwent surgery, 101 received RT, 9 had combined treatment, and 66 were managed conservatively. Surgical resection achieved effective tumor removal and long-term control but was almost always associated with vagal nerve injury, leading to dysphonia and dysphagia. There was a 2.6-fold increase in postoperative impairment of at least one additional cranial nerve (IX, XII) or the sympathetic chain compared to preoperative status. RT and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) offered high tumor control rates with generally mild side effects, though long-term radiation risks-especially in younger patients-remain a concern. These modalities were often preferred for small, non-secreting tumors with preserved nerve function. The wait-and-scan approach was mainly used in elderly patients with asymptomatic or slow-growing tumors. No definitive predictors of tumor growth or treatment complications emerged from the literature.
conclusionsSurgery offers curative resection but carries a high risk of cranial nerve morbidity. RT and SRS are effective, less invasive alternatives with favorable safety profiles, particularly suitable for small, stable tumors. While observation remains appropriate in select cases, emerging options such as proton therapy, partial resection, and theranostics require further research to clarify their roles. The overall quality of evidence remains low, highlighting the need for prospective, comparative studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.