ArticleBritish dental journal2015
Practical considerations for conducting dental clinical trials in primary care.
Article in British dental journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
- Parental attitudes to randomised controlled trials in primary dental care: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Developing intervention fidelity strategies for a behaviour change intervention delivered in primary care dental practices: the RETURN fidelity strategy.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Scoping review of fidelity strategies used in behaviour change trials delivered in primary dental care settings.Trials · 2024Article
- In vitro model systems for exploring oral biofilms: From single-species populations to complex multi-species communities.Journal of applied microbiology · 2022Review
- Presenting information on dental risk: PREFER study protocol for a randomised controlled trial involving patients receiving a dental check-up.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
- How to design a randomised controlled trial.British dental journal · 2017Article
- Protocol for a feasibility study of a self-help cognitive behavioural therapy resource for the reduction of dental anxiety in young people.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2015
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is increasing importance placed on conducting clinical trials in dentistry to provide a robust evidence base for the treatment provided, and models of care delivered. However, providing the evidence upon which to base such decisions is not straightforward, as the conduct of these trials is complex. Currently, only limited information is available about the strategies to deliver successful clinical trials in primary care settings, and even less available on dental clinical trials. Considerable knowledge and experience is lost once a trial is completed as details about effective management of a trial are generally not reported or disseminated to trial managers and researchers. This leads to loss of vital knowledge that could assist with the effective delivery of new trials. The aim of this study is to examine the conduct and delivery of five dental clinical trials across both Australia and the UK and identify the various factors that impacted upon their implementation. Findings suggest that early stakeholder engagement, and well-designed and managed trials, lead to improved outcomes for researchers, clinic staff and patients, and increases the potential for future dissemination and translation of information into practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26068158What 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.