ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2023
Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Cephalometric Measurements Performed on Smartphone-Based Application and Computer-Based Imaging Software: A Comparative Study.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accuracy and tracing time of cephalometric analyses on a tablet or desktop computer : A prospective study.Head & face medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim was to compare the reliability of cephalometric analysis using a smartphone-based application with conventional computer-based imaging software. Methods: Pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 50 subjects (26 males, 24 females; mean age, 19.2 years; ±4.2) were traced using the OneCeph® application and Dolphin imaging software®. Two independent observers identified seventeen landmarks and measured fourteen cephalometric measurements at an interval of. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Student's t-test was used to compare the means of two measurement methods for observer 1 and observer 2. Additionally, the time taken to complete the cephalometric measurements was also compared between the two methods. Results: Good (ICC 0.75-0.90) to excellent (ICC 0.90-1.00) interobserver and intraobserver reliability was observed for all hard and soft tissue measurements with both methods. No significant differences were found between the two measurement methods for both observers (p<0.05). OneCeph application took significantly more time to complete the analysis than Dolphin imaging software (p<0.001). Conclusion: Cephalometric measurements made through a smartphone-based application showed good to excellent interobserver and intraobserver reliability and are comparable with the computer-based software. Therefore, it can be recommended for clinical use. The time taken to complete the cephalometric measurements was more with a smartphone-based application (OneCeph application) compared to computer-based software (Dolphin imaging software).
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.