Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
bias decrease » sizes decrease (Expand Search), bias increases (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
bias decrease » sizes decrease (Expand Search), bias increases (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search)
-
4061
-
4062
-
4063
-
4064
-
4065
-
4066
-
4067
-
4068
-
4069
-
4070
-
4071
-
4072
-
4073
-
4074
-
4075
Subject’s characteristics (mean ± SD).
Published 2025“…Both groups improved knee strength, but the NHE group showed significantly greater improvements (p ≤ 0.001 for NHE, p ≤ 0.04 for control). …”
-
4076
-
4077
Flowchart of the screening process.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The TOTVA may enhance cosmetic satisfaction, improve lymph node retrieval, and decreased postoperative complications. Nevertheless, these findings warrant cautious interpretation due to low methodological quality, high risk of bias, and limited evidence quality. …”
-
4078
Result of the AMSTAR-2 assessments.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The TOTVA may enhance cosmetic satisfaction, improve lymph node retrieval, and decreased postoperative complications. Nevertheless, these findings warrant cautious interpretation due to low methodological quality, high risk of bias, and limited evidence quality. …”
-
4079
Characteristics of included reviews.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The TOTVA may enhance cosmetic satisfaction, improve lymph node retrieval, and decreased postoperative complications. Nevertheless, these findings warrant cautious interpretation due to low methodological quality, high risk of bias, and limited evidence quality. …”
-
4080
Result of the PRISMA assessments.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The TOTVA may enhance cosmetic satisfaction, improve lymph node retrieval, and decreased postoperative complications. Nevertheless, these findings warrant cautious interpretation due to low methodological quality, high risk of bias, and limited evidence quality. …”