Lucas Machado Maracci, Gleica Dal Ongaro Savegnago, Raquel Pippi Antoniazzi, Mariana Marquezan, Tatiana Bernardon Silva, Gabriela Salatino Liedke
{"title":"检查者校准对颞下颌关节椎间盘移位的临床和 mri 诊断的影响：系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Lucas Machado Maracci, Gleica Dal Ongaro Savegnago, Raquel Pippi Antoniazzi, Mariana Marquezan, Tatiana Bernardon Silva, Gabriela Salatino Liedke","doi":"10.1093/dmfr/twae027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to verify the accuracy of clinical protocols for the diagnosis of disc displacement (DD) compared with MRI, considering examiners' calibration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane (Central), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Embase, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and DANS EASY Archive databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using the R Statistical software. Results are shown using sensitivity and specificity, and 95% confidence intervals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 20 studies included in the systematic review, only three were classified as low risk of bias. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to MRI, clinical protocols showed overall sensitivity and specificity of 0.75 (0.63-0.83) and 0.73 (0.59-0.84) for DD diagnosis, respectively. For DD with reduction, sensitivity was 0.64 (0.48-0.77) and specificity was 0.72 (0.48-0.87). For DD without reduction, sensitivity was 0.58 (0.39-0.74) and specificity 0.93 (0.83-0.97). Only 8 studies reported examiner calibration when performing clinical and/or MRI evaluation; nevertheless, calibration showed a tendency to improve the diagnosis of DD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity of clinical protocols in the diagnosis of DD are slightly below the recommended values, as well as the studies lack calibration of clinical and MRI examiners. Examiner calibration seems to improve the diagnosis of DD.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":"341-353"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11358637/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of examiner calibration on clinical and MRI diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disc displacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lucas Machado Maracci, Gleica Dal Ongaro Savegnago, Raquel Pippi Antoniazzi, Mariana Marquezan, Tatiana Bernardon Silva, Gabriela Salatino Liedke\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/dmfr/twae027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to verify the accuracy of clinical protocols for the diagnosis of disc displacement (DD) compared with MRI, considering examiners' calibration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane (Central), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Embase, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and DANS EASY Archive databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using the R Statistical software. Results are shown using sensitivity and specificity, and 95% confidence intervals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 20 studies included in the systematic review, only three were classified as low risk of bias. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to MRI, clinical protocols showed overall sensitivity and specificity of 0.75 (0.63-0.83) and 0.73 (0.59-0.84) for DD diagnosis, respectively. For DD with reduction, sensitivity was 0.64 (0.48-0.77) and specificity was 0.72 (0.48-0.87). For DD without reduction, sensitivity was 0.58 (0.39-0.74) and specificity 0.93 (0.83-0.97). Only 8 studies reported examiner calibration when performing clinical and/or MRI evaluation; nevertheless, calibration showed a tendency to improve the diagnosis of DD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity of clinical protocols in the diagnosis of DD are slightly below the recommended values, as well as the studies lack calibration of clinical and MRI examiners. Examiner calibration seems to improve the diagnosis of DD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dento maxillo facial radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"341-353\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11358637/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dento maxillo facial radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twae027\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twae027","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Influence of examiner calibration on clinical and MRI diagnosis of temporomandibular joint disc displacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objectives: This study aimed to verify the accuracy of clinical protocols for the diagnosis of disc displacement (DD) compared with MRI, considering examiners' calibration.
Methods: PubMed, Cochrane (Central), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Embase, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and DANS EASY Archive databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using the R Statistical software. Results are shown using sensitivity and specificity, and 95% confidence intervals.
Results: Of the 20 studies included in the systematic review, only three were classified as low risk of bias. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to MRI, clinical protocols showed overall sensitivity and specificity of 0.75 (0.63-0.83) and 0.73 (0.59-0.84) for DD diagnosis, respectively. For DD with reduction, sensitivity was 0.64 (0.48-0.77) and specificity was 0.72 (0.48-0.87). For DD without reduction, sensitivity was 0.58 (0.39-0.74) and specificity 0.93 (0.83-0.97). Only 8 studies reported examiner calibration when performing clinical and/or MRI evaluation; nevertheless, calibration showed a tendency to improve the diagnosis of DD.
Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of clinical protocols in the diagnosis of DD are slightly below the recommended values, as well as the studies lack calibration of clinical and MRI examiners. Examiner calibration seems to improve the diagnosis of DD.
期刊介绍：
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging.
Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology.
The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal.
Quick Facts:
- 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919
- Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks
- Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks
- Open access option
- ISSN: 0250-832X
- eISSN: 1476-542X
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
