International journal of paleopathology · 2024
Chronic Maxillary Sinusitis: A comparison of osteological and CT methods of diagnosis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеИсторическая статьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Casna Maia, Schrader Sarah A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the differences between endoscopic and radiological methods of analysis for diagnosing chronic maxillary sinusitis (CMS) in archaeological skeletal remains.
MATERIALS: 32 crania from a Dutch post-medieval rural population.
METHODS: We assessed the presence of bone changes indicative of CMS (i.e., bone growth and bone resorption) both endoscopically and through computed tomography (CT), and then compared results.
RESULTS: We observed moderate agreement between bone growth scores obtained through endoscopy and CT, and fair agreement when assessing bone resorption.
CONCLUSIONS: CMS prevalence rates observed through CT may be comparable to rates assessed endoscopically, although caution is needed when making direct comparisons.
SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first study comparing data obtained through endoscopy and radiological methods in the study of CMS, informing paleopathologists about potential biases in data comparison.
LIMITATIONS: Our small sample size likely impacted results.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Further research is advised to fully explore the comparability of endoscopic and radiological method of analysis in the study of sinusitis.
DATA AVAILABILITY: The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available upon request.
MATERIALS: 32 crania from a Dutch post-medieval rural population.
METHODS: We assessed the presence of bone changes indicative of CMS (i.e., bone growth and bone resorption) both endoscopically and through computed tomography (CT), and then compared results.
RESULTS: We observed moderate agreement between bone growth scores obtained through endoscopy and CT, and fair agreement when assessing bone resorption.
CONCLUSIONS: CMS prevalence rates observed through CT may be comparable to rates assessed endoscopically, although caution is needed when making direct comparisons.
SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first study comparing data obtained through endoscopy and radiological methods in the study of CMS, informing paleopathologists about potential biases in data comparison.
LIMITATIONS: Our small sample size likely impacted results.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Further research is advised to fully explore the comparability of endoscopic and radiological method of analysis in the study of sinusitis.
DATA AVAILABILITY: The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available upon request.