ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2016
Little research on effective tools to improve patient safety in the dental setting.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2016. 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.
- A scoping review of patient safety checklists in dentistry.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sourcesMedline via OVID, Embase via OVID, HMIC via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO and Web of Science.Study selectionDescriptive, observational and experimental studies that used or described the development of patient safety interventions relating to dental care. Outcomes of interest were: patient safety, harm prevention, risk minimisation, patient satisfaction and patient acceptability, professional acceptability, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and efficiency.Data extraction and synthesisAll titles and abstracts were screened by at least two authors. The eligible studies were data extracted by two authors, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer if necessary. A narrative approach was taken and quality assessed using CASP tools.ResultsNine studies were identified. Four described the use of checklists, three the use of reporting systems, one the use of electronic reminders and one the use of trigger tools. The risk of bias in the studies was high.ConclusionsThe available literature on patient safety is in its infancy. Surgical checklists may be effective in reducing surgical errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27339232What 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.