SynthesisDento maxillo facial radiology2024
Influence of examiner calibration on clinical and MRI diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disc displacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporomandibular Disorders Diagnosis: Current Challenges and the Promising Role of Artificial Intelligence.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Two-stage deep learning approach for screening for anterior disk displacement of the temporomandibular joint using orthopantomograms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Temporomandibular Joint Structures and Conditions Using Dental-Dedicated MRI: A Feasibility Study.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Exploring the relationship between clinical symptoms and MRI findings in temporomandibular joint disorders: a preliminary study.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2025Article
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
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to verify the accuracy of clinical protocols for the diagnosis of disc displacement (DD) compared with MRI, considering examiners' calibration.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane (Central), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Embase, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and DANS EASY Archive databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using the R Statistical software. Results are shown using sensitivity and specificity, and 95% confidence intervals.
resultsOf the 20 studies included in the systematic review, only three were classified as low risk of bias. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to MRI, clinical protocols showed overall sensitivity and specificity of 0.75 (0.63-0.83) and 0.73 (0.59-0.84) for DD diagnosis, respectively. For DD with reduction, sensitivity was 0.64 (0.48-0.77) and specificity was 0.72 (0.48-0.87). For DD without reduction, sensitivity was 0.58 (0.39-0.74) and specificity 0.93 (0.83-0.97). Only 8 studies reported examiner calibration when performing clinical and/or MRI evaluation; nevertheless, calibration showed a tendency to improve the diagnosis of DD.
conclusionThe sensitivity and specificity of clinical protocols in the diagnosis of DD are slightly below the recommended values, as well as the studies lack calibration of clinical and MRI examiners. Examiner calibration seems to improve the diagnosis of DD.
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.