Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24970541›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2014

A national survey of consultants, specialists and specialist registrars in restorative dentistry for the assessment and treatment planning of oral cancer patients.

K Dewan, R D Kelly, P Bardsley

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
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 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Wider consultation.British dental journal · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K DewanSpecialist Registrar and Honorary Clinical Lecturer in Restorative Dentistry Birmingham Dental Hospital, St Chad's Queensway, Birmingham, B4 6NN.
R D KellyClinical Lecturer in Conservative Dentistry Birmingham Dental Hospital, St Chad's Queensway, Birmingham, B4 6NN.
P BardsleyConsultant in Restorative Dentistry Birmingham Dental Hospital, St Chad's Queensway, Birmingham, B4 6NN.
Birmingham Dental Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo investigate the approach of restorative dentists towards the assessment and treatment planning of oral cancer patients in the UK. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe survey was conducted at the annual meeting of the Association of Consultants in Restorative Dentistry (ACSRD) and Specialist Registrar in Restorative Dentistry group (SRRDG) in September 2011. Delegates were requested to fill in a two-section questionnaire; the first section included 16 questions, evaluating cancer service provision in their units, and the second included five questions based on a clinical scenario evaluating dental management of a patient undergoing pre-radiotherapy treatment.

resultsNinety-four questionnaires were distributed; 65 (69.1%) were returned. Thirty (46.1%) respondents were consultants, 27 (41.5%) were specialist registrars and the remaining 8 (12.3%) were either specialist practitioners or trust grade dentists working in the speciality of restorative dentistry. Forty-eight (73%) of the respondents worked in NHS posts and the remaining 17 (27%) worked in academic posts. A total of 50 (77%) respondents carried out clinical work which regularly included the dental assessment or treatment of head and neck (H&N) oncology patients, before or post radiotherapy. Among the respondents who were involved in the dental assessment of oncology patients, 32% of them did not have a protocol for review appointments in their units. Ninety-one percent of respondents said that they used dental implants for rehabilitation post cancer surgery and 80% also used implants either always or sometimes in irradiated bone. Answers to scenario questions highlighted that all the respondents would extract very poorly prognostic tooth (that is, root stumps) before radiotherapy, irrespective of it being at the side of the planned radiotherapy field. Fifty-eight percent of respondents preferred to extract a non-functional, heavily restored, non-carious, distal maxillary molar tooth which was not in the area of radiotherapy beam and the majority (84%) chose to carry out root canal treatment (RCT) of a functional premolar tooth if considered non vital.

conclusionThis study highlights the variability in the approach of clinicians in dental and oral rehabilitation of patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment for oral cancer patients.

Indexed as

Dental Restoration, PermanentPatient Care PlanningHumansMouth NeoplasmsSpecialties, DentalState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID24970541
OpenAlexW1998627164

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.