ArticleMaedica2024
Measurement Accuracy of CBCT
Article in Maedica, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the measurement accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) for the linear distance between the stapes and round window, and the incudostapedial joint thickness for cochlear implantation treatment planning. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in vitro study, 12 temporal bones along with their covering soft tissue underwent high-resolution (HR) and low-resolution (LR) CBCT and MDCT. The linear distance between the stapes and round window as well as the incudostapedial joint thickness were measured on images by an oral radiologist and a general radiologist. Data were analyzed by paired t-test, Wilcoxon test and Pearson's correlation test (alpha=0.05).
resultsSignificant correlations and excellent agreement were noted between HR-CBCT and MDCT, HR-CBCT and LR-CBCT, and LR-CBCT and MDCT in both measurements (P<0.05). The mean distance between the stapes and round window on HR-CBCT was significantly higher than that on MDCT and LR-CBCT, and there were significant differences in the measurement accuracy of HR-CBCT with MDCT (P=0.014) and LR-CBCT (P=0.027). The difference between LR-CBCT and MDCT was not significant (P=0.102). The mean joint thickness on HR-CBCT was significantly higher than that on MDCT and the measurement accuracy of CBCT and MDCT was significantly different in this respect (P=0.014). The differences between LR-CBCT and MDCT, and HR-CBCT and LR-CBCT were not significant (P<0.05).
conclusionsThe results of the present study showed an acceptable accuracy of CBCT comparable to that of MDCT for measurement of the linear distance between the stapes and round window, and the incudostapedial joint thickness for cochlear implantation treatment planning.
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.