Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29587715›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2018

Comparative effectiveness of school-based caries prevention: a prospective cohort study.

Ryan Richard Ruff, Richard Niederman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ryan Richard RuffDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Promotion, New York University College of Dentistry, 433 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10010, USA. ryan.ruff@nyu.edu.
Richard NiedermanDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Promotion, New York University College of Dentistry, 433 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10010, USA.
New York University · US

Funding

Effectiveness and improvement of rural, school-based, caries prevention programsU24MD006964 · NIMHD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI NIEDERMAN, RICHARD · 2011 to 2015
$6.3M
Statewide implementation and evaluation of a rural, school-based, caries prevention programR01MD011526 · NIMHD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI NIEDERMAN, RICHARD, RUFF, RYAN RICHARD · 2017 to 2021
$3.6M
Analysis of longitudinal data from a school-based comprehensive caries prevention programR03DE025289 · NIDCR · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI RUFF, RYAN RICHARD · 2016 to 2017
$317k
NIDCR NIH HHS 1R03DE025289NIDCR NIH HHS R03 DE025289NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD011526NIMHD NIH HHS U24 MD006964
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDental caries is the world's most prevalent childhood disease. School-based caries prevention can reduce the risk of childhood caries by increasing access to care. However, the optimal mix of treatment services, intensity, and frequency of care is unknown.

methodsData were derived from two prospective cohorts of US children participating in two caries prevention programs with different treatment intensities. One program provided primary and secondary prevention (glass ionomer sealants and interim therapeutic restorations) and one primary prevention only (glass ionomer sealants), both given twice yearly in six-month intervals. Primary study outcomes included untreated decay and the total observed caries experience. Analysis used generalized additive models to estimate nonlinear effects and trends over time. Results were compared to those estimated using generalized estimating equations and mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression.

resultsPrimary and secondary prevention combined did not significantly reduce total caries experience compared to primary prevention alone, but did reduce the risk of untreated decay on permanent dentition. Additionally, the rate of new caries experience was slower in the primary and secondary prevention group. Nonlinear trends for dental caries across both programs were statistically significant from zero (p < .001).

conclusionCaries prevention consisting of primary and secondary prevention agents may be more effective than primary prevention alone in reducing the risk of tooth decay over time. Results suggest that the impact of caries prevention may not be constant over the medium- and long-term, suggesting reduced effectiveness with continued treatments.

Indexed as

School Health ServicesChildChild, PreschoolComparative Effectiveness ResearchDental Care for ChildrenDental CariesFemaleHumansMaleProgram EvaluationProspective StudiesCaries preventionComparative effectivenessOral health

Identifiers

PMID29587715
PMCPMC5872543
OpenAlexW2803943058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.