ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Palatal lesions: discriminative value of conventional MRI and diffusion weighted imaging.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in the Differential Diagnosis of Oral Malignant Lymphoma.Cureus · 2025Article
- Advancements in the MRI technology for identification of dentomaxillofacial pathologies.European oral research · 2025Review
- Testicular tumors: discriminative value of conventional MRI and diffusion weighted imaging.Medicine · 2021Article
- Strain elastography of palatal tumors in conjunction with intraoral ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging: 2 case reports.Imaging science in dentistry · 2020Article
- Differential diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in non-cystic lesions in floor of the mouth.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2019Article
- Diffusion-weighted MRI for differentiation between sialadenitis and pleomorphic adenoma.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the ability of conventional MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and a combination of both MRI techniques to differentiate malignant and benign palatal lesions.
methodsA retrospective review of MRI findings was performed in patients with pathologically confirmed palatal lesions between January 2012 and December 2014. Each lesion was evaluated with conventional MRI characteristics, including enhancement, inner texture, margin, adjacent soft-tissue involvement and cervical lymph node, and/or apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the differential performance of each parameter separately and together.
resultsA total of 42 patients (24 males, 18 females; age: 54.9 ± 16.4 years) were investigated. The optimal cut-off ADC value to distinguish malignant from benign lesions was 1.02 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1), with a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 75.0%. Conventional MRI showed a sensitivity of 87.1% and a specificity of 63.6%. Combination of conventional MRI and ADC scores increased sensitivity to 100% and specificity to 75.0%. The AUCs did not differ significantly between conventional MRI alone, DWI alone and integration of both.
conclusionAdditional DWI does not substantially improve differential ability of conventional MRI. However, combining ADC values with conventional MRI improves both sensitivity and specificity, which is of worth to be further validated in prospective studies with larger sample sizes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Combination of conventional MRI and ADC scores could increase the ability to differentiate malignant from benign palatal lesions, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 75.0%, although without statistical significance.
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.