Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37642713›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024

Variations and thicknesses of anterior belly of the digastric muscle: an ultrasonographic study.

Gürkan Ünsal, Sevde Göksel, Hülya Çakır Karabaş, Ahmet Faruk Ertürk, İlknur Özcan, Cengiz Evli, Merve Önder, Kaan Orhan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Gürkan ÜnsalFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus. gurkanunsal@aol.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7832-4249
Sevde GökselTepebaşı Oral and Dental Health Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Hülya Çakır KarabaşFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ahmet Faruk ErtürkFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey.
İlknur ÖzcanFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Cengiz EvliFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Merve ÖnderFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Kaan OrhanFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to evaluate the anatomy and anatomical variations of the anterior belly of the digastric muscle.

methodsHundred and fifty one ultrasonographic images of the digastric muscle pairs were evaluated in Near East University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. Morphological variations were recorded using the classification of the digastric muscle into 12 types by Kim et al. For the analysis, the Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test were used, and for the correlational analysis, Spearman's rho test was applied. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant in all tests.

resultsSeventy female and 81 male patients aged 19-60 years were evaluated. Type 1 digastric muscle was observed in 145 of 151 patients, Type 2 in 3 patients, and Type 7 in 3 patients. The thicknesses of the right and left digastric muscles were measured, and a statistically significant difference was observed between the groups when the genders were compared. It was observed that both right and left digastric muscle thicknesses were higher in males than females. There was a statistically significant positive high correlation between right and left digastric muscle thicknesses (p = 0.000; r = 0.736). No statistically significant difference was found between genders (p = 0.596) in terms of anatomical variations.

conclusionConsidering that the variations of the digastric muscle may have a clinical significance role, the normal anatomy and variations of this muscle should be well known by maxillofacial surgeons and radiologists.

Indexed as

LanguageNeck MusclesChi-Square DistributionCorrelation of DataFemaleHumansMaleStatistics, NonparametricAnatomical variationAnterior belly of the digastric muscleUltrasonography

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.