ArticleRadiology research and practice2019
The Agreement Rate between Radiographic Interpretation and Histopathologic Diagnosis of Jaw Lesions.
Article in Radiology research and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraosseous lesions of the jaw: a clinicohistological study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Agreement Between Clinical and Histopathological Diagnoses of Oral and Maxillofacial Lesions and Influencing Factors: A Five-Year Retrospective Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2024Article
- Efficiency and Safety of Dental Implantation in the Area of Hyperdense Jaw Lesions: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2022Review
- A Calcifying Odontogenic Cyst Associated with Compound Odontoma Mimicking a Tooth Germ.Case reports in dentistry · 2021Article
- A rare case of mandibular dentinogenic ghost cell tumor: Histopathological, clinical and surgical management.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the agreement rate between histopathologic diagnosis and radiographic interpretation of jaw lesions.
methodsCases with jaw pathologies that have diagnostically adequate histopathologic samples and radiographic examinations were reviewed retrospectively. Two board-certified oral and maxillofacial pathologists (OMFP) independently determined the histopathologic diagnosis, while two board-certified oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMFR) determined the radiographic interpretations independently. Then the histopathologic diagnosis and the radiographic interpretation were compared for agreement.
resultsA total of 104 cases (53% females) were included with a mean age of 31 years. The agreement rate between histopathologic diagnosis and radiographic interpretation was 49%. OMFP required OMFR consultations to reach a diagnosis in 16% of cases. The most commonly encountered lesions were by far odontogenic cysts of inflammatory origin and the agreement for this disease category was 49.1%. However, agreement rates were highest for the disease category of tumors (62.5%).
conclusionThe agreement rate between OMFP and OMFR was higher for tumors than cysts. Agreement rates between OMFP and OMFR improved with efficient consultation between the two disciplines.
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.