Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39023186›Full record

SynthesisJournal of oral rehabilitation2025

Effectiveness of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mahmud Uz Zaman, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Nasser Raqe Alqhtani, Mana Alqahtani, Mohammed J Alsaadi, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Marco Cicciù, Giuseppe Minervini

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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.

Mahmud Uz ZamanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdullaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad Khursheed AlamPreventive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia.
Nasser Raqe AlqhtaniDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdullaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.
Mana AlqahtaniDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed J AlsaadiRadiology and Medical Imaging Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam Bin Abdullaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.
Vincenzo RonsivalleDepartment of Biomedical and Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, Catania University, Catania, Italy.
Marco CicciùDepartment of Biomedical and Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, Catania University, Catania, Italy.
Giuseppe MinerviniSaveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTemporomandibular disorders (TMDs) pose diagnostic challenges, and selecting appropriate imaging modalities is crucial for accurate assessment. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying TMDs.

methodsA comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted, including studies that compared US and MRI for TMJ disorder assessments. Fixed-effects models were utilized to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-squared test and I

resultsSix studies were included, involving a total of 281 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that MRI was statistically somewhat better than US in identifying TMJ disorders. The summary OR was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.46-0.90), and the summary RR was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68-0.95). Heterogeneity among the studies was low (χ

conclusionThis meta-analysis provides evidence that MRI may be more effective than US in diagnosing TMDs. However, the study is limited by the small number of included studies and variations in demographic variables and study designs. Future research with larger samples and standardised protocols is essential to confirm and strengthen these findings. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US for TMJ disorders will aid clinicians in making informed decisions for effective TMJ disorder assessments and patient management.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingTemporomandibular Joint DisordersHumansTemporomandibular JointUltrasonographydiagnostic accuracyimaging modalitiesMRItemporomandibular disordersTMJ disorderultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID39023186
PMCPMC11740269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.