ArticleBiology2022
Technical Modifications for the Application of the Total Difference Method for Frontal Sinus Comparison.
Article in Biology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite being used in personal identification since the 1920s, frontal sinus-based methods are rarely validated. This study is a validation test of the Total Difference Method (TDM). The posterior-anterior radiographs of 10 adults were assessed by two observers using three modes: the Freehand Mode largely followed the original protocols; the Overlay Mode utilized a tracing overlay; and the Semi-Auto Mode used the overlay and macro, walking the user through multiple steps. The modes were evaluated for the time taken to complete each image and the accuracy and repeatability of the line lengths, midline assessment, and angle placement. The repeated measures analysis of variance results for the intra-observer error revealed differences in bias in the angle placement and line length mean error between the rounds and modes. The differences between the rounds were approximately consistent for each mode, suggesting observer error. Significant differences in the inaccuracy of the angle placement and the line lengths between observers by mode were evident; in post hoc testing, the Freehand Mode and Overlay Mode had the greatest error in both variables (p.adj < 0.0001). The Semi-Auto Mode retained no significant error for angle inaccuracy and had the fewest errors for line length inaccuracy (p.adj < 0.01). When using the Semi-Auto Mode, the time was 46.1% faster than that of the Freehand Mode and 34% faster than that of the Overlay Mode (F2,18 = 52.71, p < 0.0001); time slightly improved with method familiarity. The results suggest that the technique required for the TDM can reliably be repeated, and the semi-automated macro improves accuracy and efficiency, but only after the users are familiar with the method and macro procedures. All resources needed to repeat this study are freely available on GitHub.
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.