Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33154878›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020

Pitfalls and Promise of 3-dimensional Image Comparison for Craniofacial Surgical Assessment.

Harold S Matthews, Jonathan A Burge, Pieter-Jan R Verhelst, Constantinus Politis, Peter D Claes, Anthony J Penington

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Harold S MatthewsFacial Sciences Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Jonathan A BurgeDepartment of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Pieter-Jan R VerhelstOMFS-IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Constantinus PolitisOMFS-IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Peter D ClaesFacial Sciences Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Anthony J PeningtonFacial Sciences Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
KU Leuven · BEUniversity of Melbourne · AUMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AUUniversitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) photography is becoming widely used in plastic surgery. It provides an accurate and reproducible record of the facial surface anatomy and could be a versatile tool for treatment planning and assessment. However, the existing software tools available for the assessment of 3D facial imaging often give highly misleading results. The goal of this special topic article is to give clinicians an insight into methods of 3D image assessment and explain the reasons why results may be misleading. We point toward the advantages of an alternative approach using "nonrigid surface registration" for the comparison of pre- and postsurgical images. This approach is compared with the regular rigid surface registration, and this is illustrated by the assessment of a child with Crouzon syndrome before and after LeFort III osteotomy and distraction. Findings of the standard method imply that changes have occurred that are anatomically not possible, whereas the alternative approach indicates realistic changes. Furthermore, we demonstrate an exciting capacity of 3D image analysis to construct reference populations of normal head size and shape. These can be used to assess the parts of the head that are normal and abnormal pre- and posttreatment of the same child. We conclude that, while 3D image analysis has great potential in surgical assessment, existing software does not always give an adequate assessment. Collaboration among surgeons and engineering and computer science specialists should be encouraged. This way, more comprehensive and accurate techniques in patient assessment and surgical planning can be developed and applied in clinical practice.

Identifiers

PMID33154878
PMCPMC7605870
OpenAlexW3032931005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.