ReviewOdontology2026
Imaging modalities for detecting jaw bone invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.
Review in Odontology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative imaging modalities for detecting jaw-bone invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), with particular emphasis on studies using histopathology as the reference standard. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using bivariate random-effects models and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Imaging modalities were compared using meta-regression. Additional analyses were restricted to OSCC-only cohorts and studies with histopathological verification. Thirty-eight studies contributed 78 modality-specific diagnostic datasets. Computed tomography (CT; 30 datasets) yielded pooled sensitivity and specificity of 78.7% and 84.2%, respectively, compared with 84.3% and 81.6% for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 21 datasets). Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT; nine datasets) showed high sensitivity (96.7%) but lower specificity (57.5%). Corresponding estimates were 88.6% and 77.1% for cone-beam CT (five datasets), 80.2% and 81.5% for PET/CT (six datasets), and 65.7% and 90.0% for panoramic radiography (seven datasets). In analyses restricted to OSCC-only cohorts with histopathological verification, sensitivity and specificity were 78.9% and 81.7% for CT (17 datasets) and 87.2% and 75.4% for MRI (15 datasets). The formal CT comparison did not establish a significant difference between OSCC-only and mixed-site cohorts. CT and MRI showed consistent diagnostic performance for jaw-bone invasion. SPECT was highly sensitive but produced more false-positive findings. Evidence for CBCT and PET/CT remains limited. Imaging selection should consider the clinical question and the consequences of false-positive and false-negative results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42870076What 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.