Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25105665›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Tooth loss in the United Kingdom--trends in social inequalities: an age-period-and-cohort analysis.

Eduardo Bernabé, Aubrey Sheiham

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eduardo BernabéKing's College London Dental Institute at Guy's, King's College and St. Thomas' Hospitals, Division of Population and Patient Health, London, United Kingdom.
Aubrey SheihamDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
St Thomas' Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed trends in social inequalities in tooth loss in the United Kingdom between 1988 and 2009. Data from 20,126 adults who participated in the latest three national Adult Dental Health Surveys in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were used. Social class was determined using the 6-point Registrar General's Social Class. Three indicators of tooth loss were analysed; the proportion of edentate people among all adults and the number of teeth and the proportion with functional dentition (defined as having 20+ teeth) among dentate adults. Trends were modelled within an age, period and cohort framework using partial least squares regression (PLSR). Confidence intervals for PLSR estimates were obtained using non-parametric bootstrapping. The Slope and Relative Index of Inequality (SII and RII) were used to quantify social inequalities in tooth loss. Between 1988 and 2009, absolute inequalities in total tooth loss narrowed (SII changed from -28.4% to -15.3%) while relative inequalities widened (RII from 6.21 to 20.9) in the whole population. On the other hand, absolute and relative social inequality in tooth loss remained fairly stable over time among dentate adults. There was an absolute difference of 2.5-2.9 in number of teeth and 22-26% in the proportion with functional dentition between the lowest and highest social classes. In relative terms, the highest social class had 10-11% more teeth and 25-28% higher probability of having functional dentition than the lowest social class. The findings show pervasive inequalities in tooth loss by social class among British adults despite marked improvements in tooth retention in recent years and generations. In the whole adult population, absolute inequalities in tooth loss have narrowed while relative inequalities have increased steadily. Among dentate adults, absolute and relative inequalities in number of teeth and proportion of people with functional dentition have remained significant but unchanged over time.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCohort StudiesDental Health SurveysFemaleHealth Status DisparitiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedSocial ClassSocioeconomic FactorsTooth LossUnited KingdomYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25105665
PMCPMC4126783
OpenAlexW2049210850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.