Table 3.

Publications on cephalometric analysis

Authors (year)	Aim of the study	Observers	Subjects	Design of the study	Statistical method	Results according to authors	Level of evidence
De Abreu [28]	Assessment criteria of unanimity for different cephalometric analyses	Not referred	129 patients	Diagnosis performed based on Ricketts, Steiner, Cervera and Coutand cephalometric analyses	Not referred	3 out of 61 cases with similar diagnosis. In 23 cases, 4 analyses achieved similar diagnosis. In 13 cases, 3 different diagnoses were obtained. In 8 cases, the diagnosis was different for class II and class III	Low
Abdullah et al. [29]	Examine accuracy and precision of Steiner analysis for changes on ANB angle, the Pg-NB distance and upper and lower incisor positions	Different orthodontists (not reference to the number)	275 patients	Radiographs traced and analysed by orthodontists according to the Steiner analysis	Paired t test, mean and standard deviation	The predicted change in L1 (lower incisor) to NB was underestimated by 0.8 mm. Only the prediction for pogonion and NB showed improvement of the precision (30%)	Low
				Radiographs at the end of treatment (T2) were traced by one observer