ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2013
Development and initial validation of a content taxonomy for patient records in general dentistry.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building the foundation for a modern patient-partnered infrastructure to study temporomandibular disorders.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Using electronic dental record data for research: a data-mapping study.Journal of dental research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDevelop and validate an initial content taxonomy for patient records in general dentistry.
methodsPhase 1 - obtain 95 de-identified patient records from 11 general dentists in the United States. Phase 2 - extract individual data fields (information items), both explicit (labeled) and implicit (unlabeled), from records, and organize into categories mirroring original field context. Phase 3 - refine raw list of information items by eliminating duplicates/redundancies and focusing on general dentistry. Phase 4 - validate all items regarding inclusion and importance using a two-round Delphi study with a panel of 22 general dentists active in clinical practice, education, and research.
resultsAnalysis of 76 patient records from 9 dentists, combined with previous work, yielded a raw list of 1509 information items. Refinement reduced this list to 1107 items, subsequently rated by the Delphi panel. The final model contained 870 items, with 761 (88%) rated as mandatory. In Round 1, 95% (825) of the final items were accepted, in Round 2 the remaining 5% (45). Only 45 items on the initial list were rejected and 192 (or 17%) remained equivocal.
conclusionGrounded in the reality of clinical practice, our proposed content taxonomy represents a significant advance over existing guidelines and standards by providing a granular and comprehensive information representation for general dental patient records. It offers a significant foundational asset for implementing an interoperable health information technology infrastructure for general dentistry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.