ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Imaging Modalities for Complex Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologies: A Systematic Review and Semi-Quantitative Synthesis.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been established that a significant section of the population is affected by oral and maxillofacial pathologies. This systematic review and semi-quantitative synthesis, therefore, aim to identify different imaging modalities that are used to diagnose these pathologies and their relative effectiveness. This study also evaluates the impact of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) on the efficacy of the imaging modalities. The method applied in the study was a systematic review and semi-quantitative synthesis, and different quantitative studies were selected and their findings analyzed. The selection process was non-biased in nature since objective inclusion and exclusion criteria, such as the year the study was published and the rating of the methodology, were used in the selection process. The study found that certain imaging modalities, such as ultrasonography and scintigraphy, have more accuracy and sensitivity compared to conventional radiology. Ultrasonography was also found to have more advantages due to its lack of use of ionization, thus reducing the impact associated with ionization during the imaging process. AI was also found to have a positive impact on different imaging modalities, as it increased the sensitivity and the accuracy of the modalities. One of the recommendations is continued research on the impact of AI tools; technologies are continually being improved, and therefore, their effectiveness is likely to increase over time. The use of ultrasonography should be advocated for, and the necessary resources should be made available, as ultrasonography not only has a higher rate of success but also reduces the risks associated with conventional imaging processes.
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.