Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34359291›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Ultrasound Imaging versus Radiographs in Differentiating Periapical Lesions: A Systematic Review.

Shankargouda Patil, Ahmed Alkahtani, Shilpa Bhandi, Mohammed Mashyakhy, Mario Alvarez, Riyadh Alroomy, Ali Hendi, Saranya Varadarajan, Rodolfo Reda, A Thirumal Raj and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. An Update on Advanced Diagnostic Imaging in Dentistry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Shankargouda PatilDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Oral Pathology, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-7246-5497
Ahmed AlkahtaniDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
Shilpa BhandiDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed MashyakhyDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.
Mario AlvarezDivision of Endodontics and Orthodontics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA.
Riyadh AlroomyDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Majmaah University, AlMajmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia.
Ali HendiDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.
Saranya VaradarajanDepartment of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital, Chennai 600130, India.ORCID 0000-0002-7051-1143
Rodolfo RedaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University, University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1532-6524
A Thirumal RajDepartment of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital, Chennai 600130, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1079-1024
Luca TestarelliDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University, University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3904-3000
Jazan University · SASapienza University of Rome · ITSri Venkateswara Medical College and Ruia Hospital · INKing Saud University · SAMajmaah University · SAUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasonography is a non-invasive method of diagnosing periapical lesions while radiologic methods are more common. Periapical lesions due to endodontic infection are one of the most common causes of periapical radiolucency that need to be distinguished to help determine the course of treatment. This review aimed to examine the accuracy of ultrasound and compare it to radiographs in distinguishing these lesions in vivo.

methodsThis review process followed the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search of databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) was conducted without any restrictions on time. Articles available in English were included. The selection was done according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies.

resultsThe search provided a total of 87 articles, out of which, five were selected for the final review. In all the studies, ultrasound had higher accuracy in distinguishing periapical lesions. All the studies indicated a risk of bias, especially in patient selection.

conclusionWithin limitations, the study indicates that ultrasound is a better diagnostic tool to distinguish periapical lesions compared to radiographs but further studies with well-designed, rigorous protocols and low risk of bias are needed to provide stronger evidence.

Indexed as

diagnosisimaginglesionsperiapicalradiographultrasound

Identifiers

PMID34359291
PMCPMC8303698
OpenAlexW3180778837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.