ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2020
Through the quality kaleidoscope: reflections on research in dentomaxillofacial imaging.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Head motion and perception of discomfort by young children during simulated CBCT examinations.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2021Trial
- Effect of computer-assisted-learning and simulation clinics on dental students' cognitive and performance skills: panoramic image errors related to patient's head position.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2020Trial
- The impact of cone beam CT on outcomes associated with endodontic access cavity preparation: a controlled human analogue study using 3D-printed first maxillary molars.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Article
- "New Normal" Radiology.International dental journal · 2022Review
- Impact of cone beam CT on diagnosis of external cervical resorption: the severity of resorption assessed in periapical radiographs and cone beam CT. A prospective clinical study.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Article
- Determination of a cone-beam CT low-dose protocol for root fracture diagnosis in non-endodontically treated anterior maxillary teeth.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2022Article
- A rater agreement study on measurements in cross-sectional CBCT images exploring the association between alveolar bone morphology and craniofacial height.Oral radiology · 2021Article
- A meta-review of effective doses in dental and maxillofacial cone beam CT using the ROBIS tool.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Radiographic modalities for diagnosis of caries in a historical perspective: from film to machine-intelligence supported systems.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2021Review
- Does anthropomorphic model design inDento maxillo facial radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The REduce research Waste And Reward Diligence statement has highlighted how weaknesses in health research can produce misleading results and waste valuable resources. Research on diagnostic efficacy in the field of dentomaxillofacial radiology (DMFR) is no exception to these criticisms and could be strengthened by more robust study designs, consistent use of a core set of outcome measures and completeness in reporting. Furthermore, we advocate that everyone participating in collaborative research on clinical interventions subscribes to the importance of methodological quality in how imaging methods are used. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to present a guide to conducting high-quality research on diagnostic efficacy in DMFR.We initially propose a framework inspired by the hierarchical model of efficacy of Fryback and Thornbury, highlighting study designs, measures of analysis, completeness of reporting and established guidelines to assist in these aspects of research. Bias in research, and measures to prevent or limit it, are then described.It is desirable to climb the Fryback and Thornbury "ladder" from technical efficacy, via accuracy and clinical efficacy, to societal efficacy of imaging methods. Efficacy studies on the higher steps of the ladder may be difficult to perform, but we must strive to answer questions of how useful our methods are in patient management and assess benefits, risks, costs, ethical and social issues. With the framework of six efficacy levels as the structure and based on our experience, we present information that may facilitate quality enhancement of diagnostic efficacy research in DMFR.
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.