ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2023
Concordance and reproducibility in the location of reference points for a volumetric craniofacial analysis: Cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Considering the limitations of visualization that occur even with the use of radiographs, the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) becomes more attractive to diagnose and propose an assertive treatment plan. This study aimed to evaluate intra and interobserver reproducibility, and concordance of 31 reference points we described considering visualization tools and the three planes of space in a bimaxillary CBCT. Methods: Three observers located in triplicate the 31 reference points in the CBCT of six healthy patients. Friedman test was used to compare intraobserver paired samples, and interobserver concordance was determined by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with ranges>0.75 (excellent), between 0.60 and 0.74 (good), between 0.40 and 0.59 (sufficient) and<0.40 (poor). The Results: A high ICC (>0.75%) was obtained by comparing the x, y, and z values at the location of landmark points. Excellent ICC>0.75 was for 81.7% and poor<0.40 was 7.5% in the interobserver evaluation. Data showed that 25 points had excellent concordance on the x-plane, 25 on the y-plane, and 26 on the z-plane (0.75%). Conclusion: Intraobserver concordance analysis indicated that location of anatomical reference points on bimaxillary CBCT is performed with great reproducibility by interpreting their location with a clear description in the three planes of space. Complexity of achieving a good precision degree in the manual marking of reference points caused by convexities of the anatomical structures involved, might explain the variability found. The systematized location of the reference points would contribute to reduce such variability.
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.