Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30627248›Full record

ArticlePolish journal of radiology2018

Ultrasonographic evaluation of submucosal thickness in oral submucous fibrosis patients: a cross-sectional study.

Aditya Dupare, Apeksha Dhole

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aditya DupareV.S.P.M. Dental College and Research Center, Nagpur, India.
Apeksha DholeV.S.P.M. Dental College and Research Center, Nagpur, India.
ACPM Dental College and Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the role of ultrasonography in oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) patients. MATERIAL AND

methodsA total of 150 subjects were divided equally into six groups (Group I: 25 healthy subjects; Group II: 25 healthy subjects with habit; Group III: 25 OSMF stage I; Group IV: 25 OSMF stage II; Group V: 25 OSMF stage III; and Group VI: 25 stage OSMF IVA). The grading of OSMF were done according the clinical classification given by Khanna and Andrade (2005). After fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria each subject underwent extraoral ultrasonographic evaluation of submucosal thickness and vascularity in terms of peak systolic velocity (PSV), bilaterally on buccal and labial mucosa. Furthermore, statistical comparison of each group was done, and sensitivity and specificity of USG measurements was obtained in comparison with clinical diagnosis. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS ver. 20.0.

resultsA statistically significant increase in mean submucosal thickness was shown, and a decrease in PSV with the advancement of severity of the OSMF. In ultrasonographic diagnosis of OSMF, the reported submucosal thickness had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy was 80%, 100%, 100%, 71.4%, and 87%, respectively, but PSV failed to classify the lesion.

conclusionsBecause the severity of the disease showed a direct relationship with submucosal thickness and an inverse relationship with PSV, habit-induced mucosal alteration in submucosal thickness can be seen on USG, which cannot be appreciated on clinical examination. Hence, USG can be a promising tool for early diagnosis, assessment of the severity, and evaluation of prognosis of OSMF.

Indexed as

OSMFpeak systolic velocity (PSV)submucosal thicknessultrasonography (USG)

Identifiers

PMID30627248
PMCPMC6323594
OpenAlexW2886582440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.