Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27713449›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2016

Validity and reliability of remote dental screening by different oral health professionals using a store-and-forward telehealth model.

M Estai, J Winters, Y Kanagasingam, J Shiikha, H Checker, E Kruger, M Tennant

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Dental Care Access and the Elderly: What Is the Role of Teledentistry? A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Snap, send &screen.British dental journal · 2016
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M EstaiInternational Research Collaborative - Oral Health and Equity, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Australia.
J WintersDental Department, Princess Margaret Hospital, Australia.
Y KanagasingamAustralian eHealth Research Centre, CSIRO, Australia.
J ShiikhaInternational Research Collaborative - Oral Health and Equity, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Australia.
H CheckerInternational Research Collaborative - Oral Health and Equity, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Australia.
E KrugerInternational Research Collaborative - Oral Health and Equity, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Australia.
M TennantInternational Research Collaborative - Oral Health and Equity, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Australia.
University of Western Australia · AUAustralian e-Health Research Centre · AUPrincess Margaret Hospital for Children · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective This study was conducted to evaluate the validity and reliability of intraoral photographic assessments by different members of a dental team as a means for dental screening in children.Methods The intraoral photographic records of 126 children (2 to 18 years old) were obtained from routine clinical records taken before dental treatment. Intraoral photographs were obtained using a DSLR camera and then uploaded to a cloud-based server using store-and-forward telehealth technology. Images were reviewed by an expert panel to formulate a benchmark screening baseline, to which the screeners' data were compared. The photographic assessments conducted by a mid-level dental practitioner (MLDP) and dentist, were compared to the benchmark expert panel assessment.Results The screeners' assessments by means of intraoral photography, when compared to the expert panel assessment had a sensitivity value of 82-89% and specificity value of 97%. The inter-examiner agreement between the expert panel assessment and photographic method (assessed by a dentist and MLDP), was almost perfect, with a kappa score ranging from 0.82 to 0.88. The mean DFT/dft score for the children as determined by the expert panel's review and photographic assessment ranging from 5.41 to 5.79, with mean scores between the two assessment methods not significantly different (P = 0.746).Conclusion Our results suggested that oral health professionals (other than dentists) have the potential to screen for caries from intraoral photographs with the same diagnostic accuracy and reliability as dentists. This strategy has implications for supporting the use of MLDPs such as dental therapists or hygienists to screen for oral disease using telehealth.

Indexed as

Oral HealthPhotography, DentalTelemedicineAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolDental CariesFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID27713449
OpenAlexW2529442071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.