ArticleScientific reports2023
Panoramic errors in pediatric patients with special needs.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the types and frequencies of panoramic technical errors in pediatric patients with special needs, as compared to matching images of patients with normal developmental patterns. Panoramic images of 100 pediatric patients, with equal numbers of either special needs or healthy controls, referred to our Oral Maxillofacial Imaging unit, were retrospectively examined by four blinded observers for the presence of four common technical errors: palatoglossal air space, movement, positioning errors, and foreign bodies appearance. In addition, they subjectively determined the image quality on an ordinal scale. The statistical examination included inter-observer correlation and correlations between demographic factors (age, gender, developmental status) and the number and types of errors. The frequencies of demonstrated errors were, in descending order: movement, positioning, palatoglossal air space, and foreign bodies' appearance. The special needs group images showed significantly more errors and were rated as low-quality radiographs. Younger patients in both groups showed more movement and positioning errors. Technical errors in panoramic images of patients with special needs were more frequently found. Therefore, increased awareness of the staff and appropriate pre-imaging instructions to the patients, are required when imaging pediatric patients, especially those with special needs.
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.