ReviewThe Eurasian journal of medicine2019
Accuracy of the Cone Beam Computed Tomography in the Detection of Bone Invasion in Patients with Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Review in The Eurasian journal of medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two decades of research on CBCT imaging in DMFR - an appraisal of scientific evidence.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Oral Cancer: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Computed Tomography in Predicting the Mandibular Involvement by Oral Cancer, a Retrospective Study.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025Article
- Prediction of bone invasion of oral squamous cell carcinoma using a magnetic resonance imaging-based machine learning model.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
- The diagnostic yield of preoperative screening for oral cancer in dogs over 15 years, part 1: locoregional screening.Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2023Article
- Assessing the accuracy of computed tomography in detecting bony invasion and thickness of squamous cell carcinoma of the scalp.The neuroradiology journal · 2021Article
- Craniofacial Osteomas: From Diagnosis to Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review article aims to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with respect to other imaging methods in detection of bone tissue invasion by oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The review was carried out of English language studies in PubMed Search, National Library of Medicine, between 1990 and 2017. For each study, sensitivity, specificity, and positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratio, as well as the diagnostic accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Of the 62 collected articles, 7 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Tests and respective articles included were computed tomography (CT, four studies), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, five studies), C (two studies), single-photon emission tomography (SPECT, two studies), multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT, two studies), and panoramic radiography (PR, two studies). The analytic data show values of LR+ were 14.4 (CT), 37.9 (MRI), 27.8 (CBCT), 25.5 (SPECT), 37.0 (MSCT), 4.8 (PR), respectively. The values of LR- were 0.35 (CT), 0.24 (MRI), 0.10 (CBCT), 0.06 (SPECT), 0.31 (MSCT), and 0.36 (PR), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values for bone tissue invasion by OSCC were 90.31%-74.91% (CT), 90.63%-78.69% (MRI), 80.05%-89.83% (CBCT), 72.97%-95.53% (SPECT), 87.44%-73.74% (MSCT), and 84.245%-69.18% (PR), respectively. The level of scientific evidence available today is weak. To better define the impact of CBCT on clinical decision-making, further studies with uniform methodological approach are needed.
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.