SynthesisDento maxillo facial radiology2021
A systematic review on diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance neurography versus clinical neurosensory assessment for post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathy in patients reporting neurosensory disturbance.
Synthesis in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Anatomy and Diagnostic Challenges in Peripheral Nerve Trauma for the Forensic Physician.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Letter to the Editor: Evaluation of Facial Pain with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Neurography of the Trigeminal Nerve.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2023Article
- Dental MRI-only a future vision or standard of care? A literature review on current indications and applications of MRI in dentistry.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Review
- Methodologies and MR Parameters in Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Neurography: A Scoping Review Protocol.Methods and protocols · 2022Article
- Preoperative visualization of the lingual nerve by 3D double-echo steady-state MRI in surgical third molar extraction treatment.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Magnetic resonance neurography of the head and neck: state of the art, anatomy, pathology and future perspectives.The British journal of radiology · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo perform a systematic review of published studies on diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance neurography (MRN)
methodsHuman studies except case reports, reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were consulted. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Predetermined data extraction parameters were noted and summarized.
results8 studies met eligibility criteria of which 7 were retrospective, representing 444 subjects. Most studies were at high risk of bias with low applicability concerns. Populations and objectives were divergent with a large variation in timing (3 days-17 years post injury) and parameters (multiple coil designs, fat suppression techniques, additional contrast agent) of MRI acquisition.
conclusionCurrently, there is insufficient scientific knowledge to support or refute the use of MRN. Based on limited data, MRN seems promising and reliable in detection and grading of PTTN. Methodological issues underline the importance for prospective blinded studies with standardization of signal intensity calculation and rigorous reporting of MRI acquisition parameters.
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.