Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24809572›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2014

Summary of: continuing development of an oral health score for clinical audit.

Paul Brunton

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British dental journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Paul BruntonThe University of Leeds, Dental Institute.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare the outcomes of a contemporary oral health status (OHS) scoring system with national oral health data from the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey, and to explore the utility of the OHS in audit and service development.

methodsAn OHS scoring system was developed as part of a previously reported comprehensive on-line patient assessment tool. The assessment tool also measured future disease risk and indicative capitation fee grading. The modified OHS score component was developed over 20 years of research and experience from the original Oral Health Index (Burke and Wilson 1995). The online tool was piloted by 25 volunteer dentists on 640 recall patients and qualitative and quantitative feedback provided. Anonymised data from the inputs and scores generated were collected centrally and analysed using descriptive statistics.

resultsThe modified OHS was reported to have good validity by the pilot group. Submitted data confirmed a mean age for the recall patients examined as 53 ± 15.8 years and an average oral health status score of 79.5 ± 10.8 where a score of 100 equates to perfect oral health. A breakdown of the scores into the eight principal components provided evidence of cross validation with the Adult Dental Health Survey (2009).

conclusionsScoring oral health status electronically offers valuable opportunities for clinical audit. The reported benchmark oral health score of 79.5 for recall patients can be updated as increased numbers of patients enter the centralised data recording system. Audit can be facilitated by this move from a paper-based system to an on-line tool with central data collection.

Indexed as

Clinical AuditHumansOral Health

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.