List of the protein binding site prediction methods and their obtained AUC results.

a<p>Conserved residues are selected as for common binding site prediction.</p

List of the conformational B-cell epitope prediction methods and their obtained AUC results.

a<p>The AUC value is obtained from the Reference <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0062249#pone.0062249-Zhang1" target="_blank">[23]</a>.</p>b<p>10% of surface residues are returned as predicted epitopic residues.</p>c<p>Estimated based on the Figure 4 in the Reference <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0062249#pone.0062249-Zhang1" target="_blank">[23]</a>.</p

Biodegradable Nasal Packings for Endoscopic Sinonasal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<div><p>Objectives</p><p>To assess biodegradable nasal packing effectiveness for improving postoperative symptoms and mucosal healing after endoscopic sinonasal surgery as compared with conventional/non-packing groups.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Relevant articles were searched on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biodegradable packings with conventional packings or no packing, reporting postoperative symptoms and/or mucosal healing outcomes.</p><p>Results</p><p>This review included 19 studies, of which 11 compared biodegradable packings with conventional packings. Meta-analysis found that biodegradable packings significantly improved postoperative symptoms: bleeding at removal, pain at removal, pain <i>in situ</i>, and nasal blockage. Mucosal healing outcomes were inconsistent within studies, with no data could be pooled. Eight studies compared biodegradable packings with non-packing group. Postoperative symptom data in this comparison could not be pooled: A protective or equal effect on postoperative bleeding was reported in different studies; no difference was reported in pain status and nasal blockage. As for mucosal healing, meta-analysis showed that two arms of comparison had similar effect on synechiae, edema, infection and granulation at each time point.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The limiting evidence suggests that biodegradable nasal packings are statistically better than conventional packings in postoperative symptoms, and probably comparable to non-packing group, as in this comparison we could not carry out meta-analysis. No beneficial or detrimental effect on postoperative mucosal healing could be determined based on existing evidence.</p></div

Flow diagram of article selection for inclusion.

<p>Flow diagram of article selection for inclusion.</p

Forest plot of comparison: mucosal edema (biodegradable packings versus no packing) - for continuous data.

<p>Forest plot of comparison: mucosal edema (biodegradable packings versus no packing) - for continuous data.</p

Forest plot of comparison: infection (biodegradable packings versus no packing).

<p>Forest plot of comparison: infection (biodegradable packings versus no packing).</p

Forest plot of comparison: pain in situ (biodegradable packings versus conventional packings).

<p>Forest plot of comparison: pain in situ (biodegradable packings versus conventional packings).</p

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.

<p>Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.</p

Forest plot of comparison: mucosal edema (biodegradable packings versus no packing) - for dichotomous data.

<p>Forest plot of comparison: mucosal edema (biodegradable packings versus no packing) - for dichotomous data.</p

Forest plot of comparison: synechiae (biodegradable packings versus no packing) - for dichotomous data.

<p>Forest plot of comparison: synechiae (biodegradable packings versus no packing) - for dichotomous data.</p