{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016897081413210446, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.14622641509434, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Neurophysiology in Cranial Neuropathy: Comment on “Cranial Base Manifestations of Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis”

Nevertheless, the studies chosen to inform the health utilities of each reconstructive arm were a reasonable place to start, which is precisely what a base case analysis aims to do. The writers’ other concerns pertain to their impression of a lack of complexity of the model. Our model aims to mimic the main outcomes postoperatively and can only be as complex as the evidence allows. When robust data exist for the difference in clinical outcomes between arms, a branch point is included. Events that are more granular must be proven to be significantly different between arms before they are distinguished within a model. We look forward to future studies that illuminate uncertainties in this model. We encourage everyone to revisit our Discussion section. We believe that the tone of our recommendation was appropriately conservative when speaking of the costeffectiveness of primary closure over flap reconstruction. In no way did we make any blanket recommendations for primary closure. Quite the opposite, in fact. We give strong consideration to flap reconstruction in many situations, especially when the choice is no choice at all (limited or no remaining pharyngeal mucosa).