ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2022
Could computed tomography histogram analysis add value to the diagnosis of cholesteatoma?
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundTo investigate the potential role of computed tomography (CT) histogram analysis in differentiating cholesteatoma (CHS) and non-cholesteatoma (NCHS).
methodsWe evaluated 77 temporal bone CT images (from November 2016 to February 2020) that were obtained preoperatively (mean age, 37.10±17.27 years in CHS; 36.72±16.08 years in NCHS group). Histogram analyses of the resulting XML files were conducted using the R Project 3.3.2 program. ROC analysis was used to find threshold values, and the diagnostic efficiency of these values in differentiating CHS-NCHS was determined.
resultsThe CT images of 41 CHS (53.25%) and 36 NHCS cases (46.75%) were evaluated. There was a statistically significant difference between the CHS and NCHS group in terms of the mean, maximum, and median values (p = 0.036, p = 0.006, p = 0.043). When examining the ROC curve obtained from the mean of these parameters, area under the curve (AUC) is determined as 0.638, and when the threshold value is selected as 42.55, the mean value was determined to have a sensitivity of 86.50% and specificity of 56.10% in differentiating CHS-NCHS.
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.