Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26305577›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Improving Child Oral Health: Cost Analysis of a National Nursery Toothbrushing Programme.

Yulia Anopa, Alex D McMahon, David I Conway, Graham E Ball, Emma McIntosh, Lorna M D Macpherson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yulia AnopaDental School, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Alex D McMahonDental School, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
David I ConwayDental School, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Graham E BallNHS Fife, Leven, United Kingdom.
Emma McIntoshHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Lorna M D MacphersonDental School, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
University of Glasgow · GBNHS Fife · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledDental caries is one of the most common diseases of childhood. The aim of this study was to compare the cost of providing the Scotland-wide nursery toothbrushing programme with associated National Health Service (NHS) cost savings from improvements in the dental health of five-year-old children: through avoided dental extractions, fillings and potential treatments for decay.

methodsEstimated costs of the nursery toothbrushing programme in 2011/12 were requested from all Scottish Health Boards. Unit costs of a filled, extracted and decayed primary tooth were calculated using verifiable sources of information. Total costs associated with dental treatments were estimated for the period from 1999/00 to 2009/10. These costs were based on the unit costs above and using the data of the National Dental Inspection Programme and then extrapolated to the population level. Expected cost savings were calculated for each of the subsequent years in comparison with the 2001/02 dental treatment costs. Population standardised analysis of hypothetical cohorts of 1000 children per deprivation category was performed.

resultsThe estimated cost of the nursery toothbrushing programme in Scotland was £1,762,621 per year. The estimated cost of dental treatments in the baseline year 2001/02 was £8,766,297, while in 2009/10 it was £4,035,200. In 2002/03 the costs of dental treatments increased by £213,380 (2.4%). In the following years the costs decreased dramatically with the estimated annual savings ranging from £1,217,255 in 2003/04 (13.9% of costs in 2001/02) to £4,731,097 in 2009/10 (54.0%). Population standardised analysis by deprivation groups showed that the largest decrease in modelled costs was for the most deprived cohort of children.

conclusionsThe NHS costs associated with the dental treatments for five-year-old children decreased over time. In the eighth year of the toothbrushing programme the expected savings were more than two and a half times the costs of the programme implementation.

Indexed as

Public Health SurveillanceAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisDental CareHumansInfantInfant, NewbornOral HealthScotlandToothbrushing

Identifiers

PMID26305577
PMCPMC4549338
OpenAlexW1902502590

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.