2020 Tesis Quilodran Precisión y Veracidad Scanners Intraorales
IV
3 Aug, 2020
Packages
Graph theme
Dataset
Data cleaning
## # A tibble: 6 x 14
## subset autor ano tipo_in_vivo_in… examen tipo_examen n promedio sd
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <chr> <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 preci… Zimm… 2017 In vivo scann… CEREC Omni… 15 74.5 39.2
## 2 preci… Ender 2016 In vivo scann… Cadent iTe… 15 68.1 18.9
## 3 preci… Ender 2016 In vivo scann… 3Shape TRI… 15 47.5 21.4
## 4 preci… Ender 2016 In vivo scann… 3Shape TRI… 15 42.9 20.4
## 5 preci… Ender 2016 In vivo scann… CEREC Omni… 15 48.6 11.6
## 6 preci… Gan 2016 In vivo scann… 3Shape TRI… 96 59.5 11.3
## # … with 5 more variables:
## # subanalisis_a_tecnica_de_escaneo_del_fabricante_protocolo_interno <chr>,
## # subanalisis_b_tipo_de_arco_superior_inferior <chr>,
## # subanalisis_c_calidad <chr>, comentarios <chr>, validacion <chr>PRECISION
Precision scanner
## mean 95%-CI %W(random)
## Sim - 2019 - Carestream CS3500 34.0700 [30.0301; 38.1099] 10.5
## Ender - 2015 - CEREC Omnicam 35.5000 [25.5076; 45.4924] 9.4
## Ender - 2015 - Cadent iTero 36.4000 [17.4671; 55.3329] 7.1
## Malik - 2018 - CEREC Omnicam 36.5000 [26.6829; 46.3171] 9.4
## Ender - 2016 - 3Shape TRIOS Color 42.9000 [32.5764; 53.2236] 9.3
## Ender - 2016 - 3Shape TRIOS 47.5000 [36.6703; 58.3297] 9.2
## Ender - 2016 - CEREC Omnicam 48.6000 [42.7297; 54.4703] 10.2
## Malik - 2018 - 3Shape TRIOS 3 49.9000 [33.8596; 65.9404] 7.8
## Gan - 2016 - 3Shape TRIOS 3 POD 59.5200 [57.2616; 61.7784] 10.7
## Ender - 2016 - Cadent iTero 68.1000 [58.5355; 77.6645] 9.5
## Zimmermann - 2017 - CEREC Omnicam 74.5000 [54.6624; 94.3376] 6.9
##
## Number of studies combined: k = 11
##
## mean 95%-CI
## Random effects model 48.1001 [39.4623; 56.7380]
##
## Quantifying heterogeneity:
## tau^2 = 180.8012 [56.8587; 573.3893]; tau = 13.4462 [7.5405; 23.9455];
## I^2 = 93.8% [90.8%; 95.9%]; H = 4.02 [3.29; 4.91]
##
## Test of heterogeneity:
## Q d.f. p-value
## 161.75 10 < 0.0001
##
## Details on meta-analytical method:
## - Inverse variance method
## - DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
## - Jackson method for confidence interval of tau^2 and tau
## - Untransformed (raw) means
Debido a la alta heterogeneidad (93.8%), es recomendable omitir el meta analisis de efectos aleatorios y dejar solo la predicción del intervalo de confianza de la precisión, que para los escáneres evalaudos va de 16 a 80. Si el umbral clínico es máximo 100, entonces todos están dentro del margen clínico.
Sesgo publicacion
##
## Linear regression test of funnel plot asymmetry
##
## data: precision_scanner
## t = -1.0381, df = 9, p-value = 0.3263
## alternative hypothesis: asymmetry in funnel plot
## sample estimates:
## bias se.bias intercept
## -2.009667 1.935995 56.551307Interpretación: no hay sesgo de publicación para la precisión de los scanners
Precisión impresion
## mean 95%-CI
## Malik - 2018 - Silicona por adicion 21.7000 [ 16.9668; 26.4332]
## Malik - 2018 - Silicona por adicion 21.7000 [ 16.9668; 26.4332]
## Zimmermann - 2017 - Alginato 162.2000 [126.1179; 198.2821]
## Ender - 2016 - Alginato 162.2000 [126.1179; 198.2821]
## Ender - 2016 - Alginato 162.2000 [126.1179; 198.2821]
## %W(random)
## Malik - 2018 - Silicona por adicion 23.8
## Malik - 2018 - Silicona por adicion 23.8
## Zimmermann - 2017 - Alginato 17.4
## Ender - 2016 - Alginato 17.4
## Ender - 2016 - Alginato 17.4
##
## Number of studies combined: k = 5
##
## mean 95%-CI
## Random effects model 95.2041 [66.3804; 124.0278]
##
## Quantifying heterogeneity:
## tau^2 = 901.2828 [1114.9481; >41385.4084]; tau = 30.0214 [33.3908; >203.4340];
## I^2 = 97.7% [96.3%; 98.5%]; H = 6.53 [5.17; 8.23]
##
## Test of heterogeneity:
## Q d.f. p-value
## 170.34 4 < 0.0001
##
## Details on meta-analytical method:
## - Inverse variance method
## - DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
## - Jackson method for confidence interval of tau^2 and tau
## - Untransformed (raw) means
Sesgo publicacion
VERACIDAD
Veracidad scaners
## mean 95%-CI %W(random)
## Malik - 2018 - 3Shape TRIOS 3 87.1000 [80.1755; 94.0245] 16.7
## Gan - 2016 - 3Shape TRIOS 3 POD 80.0100 [76.4533; 83.5667] 16.9
## Ender - 2015 - Cadent iTero 32.4000 [26.1767; 38.6233] 16.8
## Sim - 2019 - Carestream CS3500 28.0900 [26.6279; 29.5521] 16.9
## Malik - 2018 - CEREC Omnicam 80.3000 [69.6941; 90.9059] 16.5
## Ender - 2015 - CEREC Omnicam 37.3000 [24.7657; 49.8343] 16.3
##
## Number of studies combined: k = 6
##
## mean 95%-CI
## Random effects model 57.5296 [31.2901; 83.7691]
##
## Quantifying heterogeneity:
## tau^2 = 1059.4818 [297.1007; 6432.5742]; tau = 32.5497 [17.2366; 80.2033];
## I^2 = 99.5% [99.3%; 99.6%]; H = 13.93 [12.28; 15.79]
##
## Test of heterogeneity:
## Q d.f. p-value
## 969.75 5 < 0.0001
##
## Details on meta-analytical method:
## - Inverse variance method
## - DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
## - Jackson method for confidence interval of tau^2 and tau
## - Untransformed (raw) means
Sesgo publicacion
muy pocos estudios para hacer el análisis de meta bias (sesgo de publicación)
Veracidad impresion
## mean 95%-CI %W(random)
## Ender - 2015 - Alginato 37.7000 [ 7.1094; 68.2906] 1.0
## Sim - 2019 - Polivinilsiloxano 28.4900 [27.2843; 29.6957] 72.7
## Malik - 2018 - Silicona por adicion 24.3000 [19.3038; 29.2962] 26.2
##
## Number of studies combined: k = 3
##
## mean 95%-CI
## Random effects model 27.4842 [24.3776; 30.5909]
##
## Quantifying heterogeneity:
## tau^2 = 3.0755 [0.0000; >100.0000]; tau = 1.7537 [0.0000; >10.0000];
## I^2 = 31.5% [0.0%; 92.9%]; H = 1.21 [1.00; 3.75]
##
## Test of heterogeneity:
## Q d.f. p-value
## 2.92 2 0.2324
##
## Details on meta-analytical method:
## - Inverse variance method
## - DerSimonian-Laird estimator for tau^2
## - Jackson method for confidence interval of tau^2 and tau
## - Untransformed (raw) meansAquí si se puede hacer un ma debido a que la heterogeneidad es baja
Sesgo publicacion
muy pocos estudios para hacer el análisis de meta bias (sesgo de publicación)