PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8518263

Systematic and random errors associated with Johnston's cephalometric analysis.

Abstract

This study examined intra- and interexaminer systematic and random errors associated with Johnston's cephalometric method of assessing skeletal and dental changes from pairs of radiographs. Data were obtained from the tracings of radiographs of 30 mixed dentition subjects, who had been treated to correct a Class II malocclusion. Measurements included molar and incisor crown movements relative to basal bone, apical base change, maxillary and mandibular displacement relative to the cranial base, and total molar and overjet reduction. In addition, the change in axial inclination of the incisors and molars was determined. A paired t-test for each pair of replicates for each measure was performed to examine inter- and intra-examiner bias. Estimates of the random error, the coefficient of reliability, and confidence limits (95 per cent level) of a single determination were undertaken. No systematic errors occurred between/within examiners for any linear or angular measure. Interexaminer random errors, based on the standard deviation of the mean difference between replicates, were greater than intra-examiner random errors for 12 out of 13 parameters. Measures assessing molar correction and overjet reduction had the least amount of random error variance within and across judges, while changes in mandibular position had the greatest. Because considerable random errors occurred, the Johnston analysis when used to assess skeletal changes, as well as individual molar and incisor movements, may have limited utility in clinical practice for the individual case.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S D Keeling, S R Cabassa, G J King. 1993. Systematic and random errors associated with Johnston's cephalometric analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.20.2.101

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias