ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2015
Dental students' and lecturers' perception of the degree of difficulty of caries detection associated learning topics in Brazil.
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2015. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dental Students' Ability to Detect Only-Enamel Proximal Caries on Bitewing Radiographs.Cureus · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Disruptions in Health Professional Education: Use of Cognitive Load Theory on Students' Comprehension, Cognitive Load, Engagement, and Motivation.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- A Virtual 3D Dynamic Model of Caries Lesion Progression as a Learning Object for Caries Detection Training and Teaching: Video Development Study.JMIR medical education · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt aimed to explore the degree of difficulty of caries-detection-associated-topics perceived by dental students and lecturers as pedagogical step in the development of learning objects for e-learning.
methodsA convenience sample comprising ninety-eight subjects from different academic levels (undergraduate/graduate students and pediatric dentistry lecturers) participated. Two spreadsheets (isolated/relative) were created considering key topics in the caries detection process. The isolated evaluation intended to explore each topic in an isolated way, while the relative intended to classify, comparatively, the participants' perceived difficulty per topic. Afterwards, data were analyzed. All values on spreadsheets were combined obtaining the subject's final perception. Associations between the subjects' degree of the perceived difficulty and academic level were estimated. ANOVA was used to determine differences regarding the perception among evaluated topics in distinct groups.
resultsCaries histopathology and detection of proximal carious lesions were the topics perceived as the most difficult in the process of caries detection by both students and lecturers. Differentiation between an extrinsic pigmentation and a brown-spot (caries lesion) as well as differential diagnosis between caries and enamel developmental defects or non-carious lesions were considered as more difficult by undergraduates in comparison to graduates/lecturers (regression-coefficient=14.54; Standard Error=3.34; P<0.001 and 8.40, 3.31, and 0.01 respectively).
conclusionTopics as histopathology and detection of proximal caries lesions were identified as the most difficult despite the academic level. However, some topics are differently perceived according to the group. These results are useful for developing pedagogical material, based on the students real learning needs/expectations.
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.