ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Longitudinal Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Panoramic Radiography in Oral Pathology.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this 5-year longitudinal study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of panoramic radiography (PR) in identifying oral pathology at a tertiary care facility. Methods: A retrospective review of patient files was done, encompassing those of patients who had PR for suspected oral lesions, followed by a biopsy. At various times, several diagnostic accuracy metrics were computed, such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Results: The research had 250 patients in total. In terms of identifying oral pathology, PR showed a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 90%. There were 80% and 92% PPV and NPV, respectively. With a computed DOR of 25, PR's total discriminating power was found to be high. Conclusion: In summary, PR consistently demonstrates great diagnostic accuracy in identifying oral pathology at a tertiary care facility. These results confirm that PR is a useful screening technique for oral lesions in standard clinical practice. In order to overcome PR's shortcomings and investigate methods for enhancing its diagnostic effectiveness, more investigation is necessary.
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.