Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25056993›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental research2014

Economic modeling of sealing primary molars using a "value of information" approach.

J P Ney, D N van der Goes, D L Chi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Measuring sealant placement in children at the dental practice level.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2020
    Article
  4. Assessing the validity of existing dental sealant quality measures.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2018
    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

3 authors.

J P NeyUniversity of Washington, Department of Neurology, Box 359455, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
D N van der GoesUniversity of New Mexico, Department of Economics, 1915 Roma Ave. NE 1019, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.
D L ChiUniversity of Washington, Department of Oral Health Sciences, Box 357475, Seattle, WA 98195, USA dchi@uw.edu.

Funding

Addressing Oral Health Disparities in Medicaid-Enrolled Special Needs Children wiK08DE020856 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CHI, DONALD LESLIE · 2010 to 2014
$627k
NIDCR NIH HHS K08 DE020856NIDCR NIH HHS K08DE020856
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate 2 primary molar sealant strategies for publicly insured children using an "expected value of perfect information" (EVPI) approach. We converted a 10,000-observation tooth-level cost-effectiveness simulation model comparing 2 primary molar sealant strategies - always seal (AS) and standard care (SC) - with a 1,250-observation child-level model. Costs per child per restoration or extraction averted were estimated. Opportunity losses under the AS strategy were determined for children for whom SC was the optimal choice. We determined the EVPI by multiplying mean opportunity losses by the projected incident population of publicly insured 3-year-olds in the US over 10 years with costs discounted at 2%. All analyses were conducted under assumptions of high and low intrachild correlations between at-risk teeth. The AS strategy cost $43.68 over SC (95% CI: -$5.50, $92.86) per child per restoration or extraction averted under the high intrachild correlation assumption and $15.54 (95% CI $7.86, $23.20) under the low intrachild correlation. Under high intrachild correlation, mean opportunity losses were $80.28 (95% CI: $76.39, $84.17) per child, and AS was the optimal strategy in 31% of children. Under low correlation, mean opportunity losses were $14.61 (95% CI: $12.20, $17.68) and AS was the optimal strategy in 87% of children. The EVPI was calculated at $530,813,740 and $96,578,389 (for high and low intrachild correlation, respectively), for a projected total incident population of 8,059,712 children. On average, always sealing primary molars is more effective than standard care, but widespread implementation of this preventive approach among publicly insured children would result in large opportunity losses. Additional research is needed to identify the subgroups of publicly insured children who would benefit the most from this effective and potentially cost-saving public health intervention.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicChild, PreschoolComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts and Cost AnalysisCost SavingsDental CariesDental Restoration, PermanentHumansIowaMedicareMolarPit and Fissure SealantsStandard of CareTime FactorsTooth, DeciduousPit and Fissure Sealantscost-effectivenessexpected value of perfect informationhealth economicshealth policyMedicaidsealants

Identifiers

PMID25056993
PMCPMC4213251

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.