ReviewIndian journal of dentistry2014
Knowledge and awareness of the Consumer Protection Act among dental professionals in India: A systematic review.
Review in Indian journal of dentistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Awareness about medico legal aspects and Consumer Protection Act among dentists.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe medical profession has been included in the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), to protect the interests of the patients in case of any unethical treatment rendered by the doctor. The present systematic review was conducted to assess the knowledge and awareness of CPA among dental professionals in India. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review of relevant cross-sectional observational studies was conducted regarding the level of knowledge and awareness of CPA among dental professionals in India. Five studies out of 44 were finally included in the present review, after conducting both an electronic and manual search of scientific databases. The potential biases were reported and appropriate data was extracted by the concerned investigators.
resultsMore than 90% of the study subjects in one of the studies were aware of the CPA, as compared to other studies. In two studies, when queried about the correct time period during which a patient can sue a doctor, very few subjects (18 and 23.2%) answered correctly. Almost 90% of the subjects were taking some form of consent in one of the studies. Private practitioners had more awareness as compared to academicians and combined practitioners.
conclusionThe results of the present review showed that a majority of the subjects were aware of the existence of CPA, but knowledge about the basic rules and regulations was lacking in a few studies. Therefore, dental professionals need to keep themselves updated on the various rules and latest amendments to save themselves from any litigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.