ArticleBritish dental journal2016
Referrals to a facial pain service.
Article in British dental journal, 2016. 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.
- Outcomes of referrals from endodontic to orofacial pain specialists: A retrospective cohort study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Article
- Accuracy of the painDETECT screening questionnaire for detection of neuropathic components in hospital-based patients with orofacial pain: a prospective cohort study.The journal of headache and pain · 2018Article
- Quality of oral surgery referrals and how to improve them.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo assess the quality of referral letters to a facial pain service and highlight the key requirements of such letters.
methodThe source of all referral letters to the service for five years was established. For one year the information provided in 94 referrals was assessed. Using a predetermined checklist of essential information the referral letters were compared to these set criteria.
resultsThe service received 7,001 referrals and, on average, general dental practitioners (GDPs) referred 303 more patients per year than general medical practitioners (GMPs). Seventy-one percent of all referrals were from primary care practitioners, the rest were from specialists. Over 70% of GMP and 52% of GDP letters included a past medical history, with GMPs more likely to suggest a possible diagnosis and include previous secondary care referrals. The mean score for GMP referrals compared to the standard proforma (maximum of 12) was 5.6 and for GDP referrals 5.0. A relevant drug history was included by 75.6% GMP compared to 38.7% of GDPs. GMPs were more likely to include any relevant mental health history.
conclusionsThe overall quality of referral letters is low which makes it difficult for the specialists to provide robust treatment plans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27056518What 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.