ArticleImaging science in dentistry2022
Inter-observer reliability in cone-beam computed tomography assessment of the retromolar canal: A practical plan to improve diagnostic imaging.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate inter-observer reliability among observers with different levels of proficiency and the diagnostic imaging reliability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of the retromolar canal. Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 307 patients were assessed for the presence of retromolar canals (RMCs) by 3 observers independently. Diagnoses were made twice by each observer at intervals of more than 3 weeks. Inter-observer reliability was assessed using the kappa coefficient. One observer had no experience in diagnosis using CBCT images. Therefore, a specialist in diagnostic imaging explained the CBCT images for interpretation and practiced diagnostic imaging together with this observer, while the other observer interpreted the images independently. Thereafter, the observers re-evaluated the images. Results: The interobserver kappa coefficients (including bilateral RMCs) calculated at the first reading were low, ranging from 0.21 to 0.61. Their values ranged from 0.95 (right side) to 1.00 (left side) after one-on-one practice with a diagnostic imaging specialist, while the values ranged from 0.65 (right side) to 0.66 (left side) without one-on-one practice. Conclusion: Diagnostic accuracy was improved through diagnostic imaging practice. To improve the anatomical interpretation of images, it is important to practice diagnostic imaging with a specialist in diagnostic imaging. One-on-one instruction about diagnostic imaging was an effective method of training.
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.