ReviewDento maxillo facial radiology2011
Clinical research and diagnostic efficacy studies in the oral and maxillofacial radiology literature: 1996-2005.
Review in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of imaging methods for detection of bone tissue invasion in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2013Pooled it
- Bibliometric analysis and diagnostic efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography studies published in Imaging Science in Dentistry from 2011 to 2022.Imaging science in dentistry · 2023Article
- Comparison of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of external cervical resorption (ECR): an in-vitro study.Odontology · 2022Article
- Accuracy of the Cone Beam Computed Tomography in the Detection of Bone Invasion in Patients with Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review.The Eurasian journal of medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the level of evidence that is published in the oral and maxillofacial radiology (OMR) literature.
methodsOMR papers published in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology and Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology between 1996 and 2005 were classified using epidemiological study design and diagnostic efficacy hierarchies. The country of origin and number of authors were noted.
resultsOf the 725 articles, 384 could be classified with the epidemiological study design hierarchy: 155 (40%) case reports/series and 207 (54%) cross-sectional studies. The distribution of study designs was not statistically significant across time (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.06) or regions (P = 0.89). The diagnostic efficacy hierarchy was applicable to 246 articles: 71 (29%) technical efficacy and 166 (67%) diagnostic accuracy studies. The distribution of efficacy levels was not statistically significant across time (P = 0.22) but was significant across regions (P < 0.01). Authors from Japan produced 26% of the papers with a mean ± standard deviation of 5.78 ± 1.98 authors per paper (APP); American authors, 23% (3.78 ± 1.72 APP); and all others, 51% (3.76 ± 1.51 APP).
conclusionThe OMR literature consisted mostly of case reports/series, cross-sectional, technical efficacy and diagnostic accuracy studies. Such studies do not provide strong evidence for clinical decision making nor do they address the impact of diagnostic imaging on patient care. More studies at the higher end of the study design and efficacy hierarchies are needed in order to make wise choices regarding clinical decisions and resource allocations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.