ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019
Standardized measurement of auricle: A method of high-precision and reliability based on 3D scanning and Mimics software.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 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.
- Human Auricles Are Not Symmetrical: A Comparative Study Using Landmark-Based and Surface-Based Software.The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2025Article
- A three-dimensional algorithm for precise measurement of human auricle parameters.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Objective quantitative methods to evaluate microtia reconstruction: A scoping review.JPRAS open · 2023Article
- Cost-effective 3D scanning and printing technologies for outer ear reconstruction: current status.Head & face medicine · 2023Review
- Comparison of five single-file systems in the preparation of severely curved root canals: an ex vivo study.BMC oral health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective measurement is important for diagnosing congenital or acquired auricular abnormalities and the evaluation of therapeutic efficacy. However, methods applied in the past were mostly inaccurate and unreliable. The present study aimed to introduce five standardized indices for auricle measurement and present a highly precise and reliable methodology combining three-dimensional (3D) scanning techniques and the Materialise Mimics software for the evaluation of auricle sizes. A total of 20 normal ears were measured independently by four surgeons using the standardized digital method with 3D scanning technique and the traditional manual method. Parameters of the auricle, including the length and width, arc length, cranioauricular height and angle were measured using the Mimics software. Paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed rank test and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were performed on the data to assess the precision, uniformity and observer independence of the method. Pearson's product moment correlation was calculated to assess the correlation between auricle length and width in addition to the correlation between cranioauricular height and angle. No significant differences were indicated between measurements of five auricular parameters made by two surgeons using the digital method. However, significant differences were found using the manual method (P<0.01). ICC values derived from digital measurements ranged from 0.901 to 0.987, whereas those derived from manual measurements ranged from 0.526 to 0.807. These results suggested that the standardized digital method was replicable and reliable compared with the traditional manual method. Pearson's coefficient analysis showed that there was a significant correlation between cranioauricular height and angle (P<0.05), but no correlations were found between the height and width of the auricle (P>0.05). Taken together, data from the present study suggested that measurements of the length and width, arch length, and cranioauricular height and angle of auricles using the standardized digital method combining 3D scanning with the Mimics software were comprehensive, precise, convenient, repeatable and reliable.
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.