ReviewThe British journal of radiology2021
A meta-review of effective doses in dental and maxillofacial cone beam CT using the ROBIS tool.
Review in The British journal of 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.
- Opportunistic investigation of vascular calcification using 3-dimensional dental imaging.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
- An Overview of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Dental Panoramic Radiography in Dentistry in the Community.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Review
- An overview of meta-analyses on radiomics: more evidence is needed to support clinical translation.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Establishment of Diagnostic Reference Levels in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans in the United Arab Emirates.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- "New Normal" Radiology.International dental journal · 2022Review
- CBCT image artefacts generated by implants located inside the field of view or in the exomass.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo apply the ROBIS tool for assessment of risk of bias (RoB) in systematic reviews (SRs) in a meta-review on effective doses (EDs) in dental and maxillofacial cone beam CT.
methodsThree electronic databases and reference lists of included SRs were searched. Eligible SRs were classified as having low, high or unclear RoB. Findings of SRs were synthesised and data from primary studies combined to relate ED to field of view (FOV) and operating potential (kV).
resultsSeven SRs were included: three displayed low RoB, three high and one had unclear RoB. Only one SR related ED to image quality. Deficiencies in reporting of eligibility criteria, study selection and synthesis of results in SRs were identified. FOV height had a significant relationship with ED, explaining 27.2% of its variability. Median ED for three FOV categories differed significantly. Operating potential had a weak relationship with ED, with no significant difference in median ED between three operating potential groups.
conclusionThe ROBIS tool should have a role for meta-reviews of different aspects of radiology. The disappointing results for RoB might be remedied by developing standards to improve the quality of reporting of primary dosimetry studies and of SRs. Future dosimetry studies should always relate ED to image quality or diagnostic accuracy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This meta-review is the first to implement ROBIS for SRs of ED and identified that trustworthiness of some SRs is questionable. The percentage change in average ED per cm increase in FOV height could be calculated, emphasizing the importance of FOV as a determinant of ED in CBCT.
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.