ArticleBritish dental journal2017
Patient safety: reducing the risk of wrong tooth extraction.
Article in British dental journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient safety in orthodontic care: a scoping literature review with proposal for terminology and future research agenda.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Introduction of "qpdb" teeth numbering system.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Cells and material-based strategies for regenerative endodontics.Bioactive materials · 2022Review
- The evolution of patient safety procedures in an oral surgery department.British dental journal · 2019Article
- Trends in referral format and dental notation used in primary care referrals to dental specialists.British dental journal · 2018Article
- Patient safety: Never say never.British dental journal · 2018Article
- The use and understanding of dental notation systems in UK and Irish dental hospitals.British dental journal · 2017Article
- Orienting digital radiographs.British dental journal · 2017Article
- OMFS: Notation confusion.British dental journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over recent years there has been an increased emphasis on improving patient safety in all branches of medicine, with reducing wrong tooth extraction being a priority in dentistry. The true incidence of wrong tooth extraction is unknown but it is considered an avoidable harm and is a significant source of dental litigation. Interventions to reduce wrong tooth extraction include educational programmes encompassing human factor training, patient assisted identification, the use of checklists, marking of surgical sites and implementation of patient safety guidelines. Identified risk factors which make wrong tooth extraction more likely include; suboptimal checks and/or cross checking of relevant clinical information, unclear diagnosis, unclear documentation, ambiguity regarding notation of molar teeth, orthodontic extractions, and extractions where there are multiple carious teeth and extractions in the mixed dentition. Accurate and timely reporting of wrong tooth extraction incidents followed by analysis and sharing of findings together with implementation of improved practice will help to minimise risks of wrong tooth extraction.
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.