ArticlePloS one2019
Ultrasound detection of incidental diffuse parotid disease: A single-center study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can the ultrasound echogenicity of normal parotid and submandibular glands be used as a reference standard for normal thyroid echogenicity?Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we compared ultrasound (US) features between normal parotid parenchyma (NPP) and incidental diffuse parotid disease (DPD). From January 2008 to December 2017, 180 patients underwent neck US before parotid surgery at our hospital. From these, 82 were excluded because of the lack of histopathological data concerning the parotid parenchyma or inadequate US images. A single radiologist blinded to the clinicoserological data and histopathological results, retrospectively investigated all US features and categorizations for the parotid glands using a picture archiving and communication system. Retrospective histopathological analysis of the parotid parenchyma was performed by a single pathologist. On the basis of the histopathological analyses, the 98 patients were divided into NPP (n = 70) and DPD (n = 28) groups. Among US features, parenchymal echogenicity and echotexture showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.0001), whereas the gland size, margin, and vascularity showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). The US-based categorization significantly differentiated between NPP and DPD (p < 0.0001), and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that US categorization based on ≥2 abnormal US features showed the best diagnostic performance for detecting DPD. Thus, US can aid in differentiating DPD from NPP.
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.