ReviewCureus2025
Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for the Diagnostic Evaluation of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is one of the most common chronic inflammatory conditions globally, affecting a significant proportion of adults. It is associated with reduced quality of life, recurrent healthcare utilization, and substantial economic burden. Imaging plays a pivotal role in its diagnosis and management. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has emerged as a valuable imaging modality that provides high-resolution, three-dimensional reconstructions with lower radiation exposure compared with conventional CT. However, CBCT interpretation requires expert knowledge, remains time-intensive, and is subject to inter-observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning, has recently shown promise in enhancing diagnostic precision, standardizing interpretation, and improving efficiency. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic performance, methodological quality, and clinical applicability of AI-enhanced CBCT for CRS. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science was conducted from inception through March 2025. Studies were included if they applied AI to CBCT for CRS diagnosis or sinonasal evaluation and reported quantitative diagnostic outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and appraised study quality using QUADAS-2. Certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE. A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. AI approaches encompassed convolutional neural networks (CNNs), U-Net architectures, Mask R-CNN, and hybrid deep learning frameworks. Applications included maxillary sinusitis detection (seven studies), mucosal thickening quantification (six studies), anatomical variant detection (five studies), CRS classification (four studies), and fungal sinusitis detection (two studies). Sensitivity ranged from 77.8% to 96.7%, specificity from 78.9% to 94.2%, and AUC values from 0.83 to 0.98. Inter-reviewer agreement for study selection and extraction was excellent (κ = 0.78-0.84). QUADAS-2 indicated moderate overall quality; GRADE certainty was moderate for sinusitis detection and anatomical variants, but low to very low for other outcomes due to retrospective designs, heterogeneity, and limited external validation. AI-enhanced CBCT demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy for CRS, particularly for maxillary sinusitis and mucosal thickening. However, current evidence is constrained by methodological limitations and a lack of multicenter prospective validation. Standardized protocols, integration of patient-centered outcomes, and economic evaluations are needed before widespread clinical implementation.
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.