ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2024
Clinical audit of ultrasonography for detecting sialoliths in the submandibular gland in paediatric patients: A comparison to computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is research one of your New Year's resolutions?Australasian journal of ultrasound in 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the performance of ultrasonography with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) for detecting submandibular sialoliths. Methods: Thirteen patients with suspected submandibular sialoliths who underwent ultrasonography and CT or MRI were included. Sialoliths were diagnosed using CT (11 cases) or MRI (two cases). The submandibular duct was classified into distal and proximal ducts based on the point around the mylohyoid muscle. Sialoliths located in the proximal duct were difficult to differentiate from those located within the submandibular gland (SMG). Therefore, the location of the sialoliths was classified as follows: within the SMG/proximal duct and within the distal duct. The ultrasound results were compared with CT/MRI results. Results: Of the 13 patients included, two had sialoliths in both the SMG/proximal duct and the distal duct, three had sialoliths in the SMG/proximal duct, and five had sialoliths in the distal duct on CT or MRI. In this small cohort, all five sialoliths in the SMG/proximal duct were detected by ultrasoonography; however, of the seven cases with sialoliths located in the distal duct, only three could be detected by ultrasonography. Conclusions: The incidence of sialoliths in the distal duct was higher than that in the SMG/proximal duct. Ultrasonography showed a good performance compared with CT/MRI in the SMG/proximal duct but not in the distal duct.
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.