ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2017
Radiographic prediction of inferior alveolar nerve injury in third molar surgery.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sourcesMedline, Embase, relevant dental journals, reference lists of included studies and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry.Study selectionStudies evaluating the predictive accuracy of panoramic radiography for postoperative inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury reporting on at least one of the seven signs of IAN injury and providing data to calculate false-positive (FP), true-positive (TP), false-negative (FN) and true-negative (TN) proportions were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity were extracted or calculated. Overall pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR) (LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were also generated. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/social-community-medicine/projects/quadas/quadas-2/).ResultsEight studies were included. Only one study was considered to be at low risk of bias, one at low risk and the remainder at unclear risk. A summary of the pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios are shown in the table.ConclusionsFor all seven signs, the added value of panoramic radiography is too low to consider it appropriate for ruling out postoperative IAN in the decision-making before MM3 surgery. The added value of panoramic radiography for determining the presence of diversion of the canal, interruption of the white line of the canal and darkening of the root can be considered sufficient for ruling in the risk of postoperative IAN injury in the decision-making before MM3 surgery.
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.