Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35140566›Full record

ArticleJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2022

The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis.

Yassir A Yassir, Aya R Salman, Sarah A Nabbat

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Assessment of the quality of different commercial providers using artificial intelligence for automated cephalometric analysis compared to human orthodontic experts.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

Yassir A YassirOrthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq.
Aya R SalmanDepartment of Orthodontics, Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq.
Sarah A NabbatDepartment of Orthodontics, Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study compares the accuracy and reliability of WebCeph (web-based program for cephalometric analysis) with the AutoCAD computer software. MATERIALS AND

methodsA sample of pretreatment digital lateral cephalograms of 50 orthodontic patients was analysed with WebCeph and AutoCAD software (as a standard measure). On each cephalogram, 17 landmarks and 11 measurements were marked and performed as skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue parameters. We used six angular and five linear measurements. A paired t-test was used to assess the systematic bias. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot with linear regression analysis were used to assess the agreement between the two methods.

resultsThere was adequate reproducibility for the measurements with both WebCeph and AutoCAD. The paired t-test showed statistically significant differences for five angular and two linear measurements (P < 0.05). The ICC test between WebCeph and AutoCAD revealed very good to excellent agreement for all measurements, except for the lower incisor to mandibular plane angle. The Bland-Altman plot visually showed a relatively acceptable limit of agreement for three angular and two linear measurements only, and the linear regression analysis revealed a significant proportional bias between the two methods for four angles and the upper lip-Esthetic line (U Lip-E Line). The systematic bias and level of agreement improved with the use of the semi-automatic WebCeph.

conclusionsDifferent problems, such as poor landmark identification/soft tissue tracing and inconsistency of measurements, are inherent to the automatic WebCeph. The semi-automatic WebCeph can overcome some limitations of the automatic WebCeph; however, it should be used for cephalometric analysis with a great deal of caution.

Indexed as

Cephalometric analysisCephalometric softwareIntraclass correlationOrthodonticWebCeph

Identifiers

PMID35140566
PMCPMC8801471

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.