| Title |
Diagnostic value of ultrasonography for the detection of disc displacements in the temporomandibular joint: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-018-2359-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Naichuan Su, Arjen J. van Wijk, Corine M. Visscher, Frank Lobbezoo, Geert J. M. G. van der Heijden |
| Abstract |
The aim was to assess the added diagnostic value of ultrasonography (US) for establishing the presence or absence of disc displacements (DDs) in temporomandibular joints (TMJs). Pubmed and EMBASE were searched electronically to identify diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed the diagnostic value of US for the diagnosis of DD, using Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the reference standard. Meta-analyses were performed with Metadisc 1.4 and RevMan 5.3. A total of 16 studies qualified for meta-analyses. For the diagnosis of DD at closed mouth position (DD-CM) and DD at maximum mouth-opening position (DD-MMO), the added values of a positive result with US for ruling in DD-CM and DD-MMO were 22 and 41%, while those of a negative result with US for ruling out DD-CM and DD-MMO were 30 and 20%. For the diagnosis of DD with reduction (DDWR) and DD without reduction (DDWoR), the added values of a positive result in US for ruling in DDWR and DDWoR were 35 and 41%, while those of a negative result in US for ruling out DDWR and DDWoR were 21 and 27%. Using MRI as reference standard, the added values of both positive predictive values and negative predictive values of US for ruling in and ruling out DDs are sufficient in the decision-making in dental practice. US can be a good imaging tool to supplement clinical examination findings in patients with suspected DDs. Combined static and dynamic examinations using high-resolution US should be preferred. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 50% |
| Latvia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 29% |
| Unknown | 19 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,839,807
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#563
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,771
of 330,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#18
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.