ArticleBritish dental journal2014
Summary of: International benchmarking of hospitalisations for impacted teeth: a 10-year retrospective study from the United Kingdom, France and Australia.
Article in British dental journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe United Kingdom and its national healthcare system represent a unique comparison for many other developed countries (such as Australia and France), as the practice of prophylactic removal of third molars in the United Kingdom has been discouraged for nearly two decades, with clear guidelines issued by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2000 to limit third molar removal to only pathological situations. No such guidelines exist in Australia or France. The healthcare systems in England, France and Australia all use the International Classification of Disease (ICD) coding system for diagnostic categorising of all admissions to hospitals.
aimThis study rested upon the opportunity of a universal coding system and semi-open access data to complete the first comparative study on an international scale of hospitalisations for removal of impacted teeth (between 99/00 and 08/09).
resultsOur international comparison revealed significant differences in rates of admission, with England having rates approximately five times less than France, and seven times less than Australia. Those results could be explained by the implementation of guidelines in the United Kingdom, and the absence of similar guidelines in France and Australia.
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.