ArticleBritish dental journal2014
Preaching to the converted - optimising adverse drug reaction reporting by dentists.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in adverse drug reaction reporting by dentists: a 15-year analysis of German pharmacovigilance data.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Article
- Summary of: preaching to the converted - optimising adverse drug reaction reporting by dentists.British dental journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the level of knowledge and reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of dentists at different stages of their careers and conduct a training need analysis.
designStructured questionnaires were distributed to final year dental students (DSs), foundation year one students (DF1s) and general dental practitioners (GDPs).
settingOpportunity samples of DSs from Kings College London, DF1s from the postgraduate deaneries of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and Oxford and GDPs in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The study was conducted from November 2012 to February 2013.
main outcome measuresRelative knowledge and awareness of ADRs and ADR reporting, and performance in an assessment of these aspects.
resultsThirty-one DSs, 35 DF1s and 98 GDPs took part in the study. Awareness of the Yellow Card Scheme varied between groups (30.8%, 48.6% and 88.8% respectively). Reported use of the scheme was uniformly low (2.6%, 5.7% and 5.1% respectively). There were no differences in knowledge about ADRs and ADR reporting between the three groups of dentists as indicated by median scores achieved in the questionnaire test (54%, 73% and 62% for DSs, DF1s and GDPs respectively; p = 0.638). All of the DSs, 91.4% of DF1s and 91.8% of GDPs said that they would welcome further training. Key topics included training on ADRs to medicines commonly used in their dental practice and deciding what ADRs needed to be reported. The most popular format for delivery of this training was formal lectures for DF1s and GDPs, but workshops for DSs. Postgraduate deaneries were the most popular provider choice for DF1s and GDPs.
conclusionsDentists at different stages of their careers showed variable awareness and knowledge of the UK Yellow Card Scheme and what to report. Training should be tailored to fit the needs of the different groups. A questionnaire survey incorporating a summative knowledge assessment demonstrated variable levels of knowledge about adverse drug reactions and what to report. Large majorities of all groups (>90%) expressed a desire for training in these areas and in the case of graduate and practising dentists, indicated that this should be organised by the postgraduate deaneries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25060479What 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.