Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23603087›Full record

ReviewJournal of dentistry2013

Reusing electronic patient data for dental clinical research: a review of current status.

Mei Song, Kaihong Liu, Rebecca Abromitis, Titus L Schleyer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of dentistry, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Dentistry and Interoperability.Journal of dental research · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mei SongCenter for Dental Informatics, Department of Dental Public Health, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, United States. Electronic address: echoosu@yahoo.com.
Kaihong Liu
Rebecca Abromitis
Titus L Schleyer

Funding

Data Extraction using EDR in Dental PBRNR21DE021178 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SCHLEYER, TITUS K. · 2011 to 2012
$425k
A Standard Information Model for General Dental RecordsR21DE019683 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SCHLEYER, TITUS K. · 2010 to 2011
$414k
NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE019683NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE021178NIDCR NIH HHS R21-DE-19683NIDCR NIH HHS R21-DE-21178
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe reuse of electronic patient data collected during clinical care has received increased attention as a way to increase our evidence base. The purpose of this paper was to review studies reusing electronic patient data for dental research. DATA SOURCES: 1527 citations obtained by searching MEDLINE and Embase databases, hand-searching seven dental and informatics journals, and snowball sampling. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies reusing electronic patient data for research on dental and craniofacial topics, alone or in combination with medical conditions, medications and outcomes. Studies using administrative or research databases and systematic reviews were excluded. Three reviewers extracted data independently and performed analysis jointly

resultsThe 60 studies reviewed covered epidemiological (32 studies), outcomes (16), health services research (10) and other (2) topics; were primarily retrospective (58 studies); varied significantly in sample size (9-153,619 patients) and follow-up period (1-12 years); often drew on other data sources in addition to electronic ones (25); but rarely tapped electronic dental record (EDR) data in private practices (3). Type of research was not associated with data sources used, but research topics/questions were. The most commonly reported advantages of reusing electronic data were being able to study large samples and saving time, while data quality and the inability to capture study-specific data were identified as major limitations.

conclusionsDental research reusing electronic patient data is nascent but accelerating. Future EDR design should focus on enhancing data quality, begin to integrate research data collection and implement interoperability with electronic medical records to facilitate oral-systemic investigations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Measuring and improving the quality of dental care requires that we begin to reuse electronic patient data collected in practice for clinical research. Practice data can potentially serve as a useful complement to data collected in traditional research studies.

Indexed as

Dental RecordsDental ResearchElectronic Health RecordsData CollectionEvidence-Based DentistryHumansAOatypical odontalgiaCHDClinical researchcoronary heart diseasedecayed missing and filled teethDental informaticsDental recordsDMFEDREHRelectronic dental recordselectronic health recordsElectronic health recordselectronic medical recordsEMRhealth maintenance organizationHMOMedical records systems, computerizedNational Dental Practice-based Research NetworkNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNDPBRNNIDCRobstructive sleep apneaONJOSAosteonecrosis of the jawPBRNpractice-based research networkReviewVAVeterans Affairs

Identifiers

PMID23603087
PMCPMC4141471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.