ArticleBDJ open2017
Eyesight: a study of the staff of a dental school.
Article in BDJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of color vision deficiency among Saudi dentists and its effect on shade selection: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence and determinants of work-related ocular symptoms among dentists of Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Frequency of Color Vision Deficiency among Saudi Dental Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.European journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- I see.British dental journal · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/
aimsThe aim was to investigate the vision of all 90 dentally qualified staff at a dental school. MATERIALS AND
methodsEthical approval was obtained and a questionnaire-based survey conducted. Data were screened and analysed using Stata 13.1. The
resultsThe participation rate was 95.6%. Most of the teachers (92%) considered their eyesight was satisfactory to practice dentistry. Of the 97% who had been tested at some stage, 15% had their eye examination due to sight deterioration with 22% needing correction. Almost two-thirds were myopic and a third were hyperopic. Forty-nine per cent wore spectacles only, with about a quarter of this group alternating between spectacles and contact lenses. Of those with corrected vision, 80% followed their optometrist's recall advice. Four participants reported that they were colour blind. While 4% had had laser-eye surgery, a further 27% were interested in this. Magnification was used by 72% with no significant differences between genders, age of staff member, place of qualification or registration status. Most of the staff (81%) thought that screening of dental student's eyesight should be mandatory, and regular eye examinations as a condition of dental practice was supported by 67%. DISCUSSION: The number of teachers reporting recent vision tests was encouraging; nevertheless, a worrying 8% surveyed were unsure if their eyesight was satisfactory for work. The commonest vision problem was myopia, with almost half of the teachers wearing spectacles. It is clear that visual standards for dentistry would be helpful. Magnification use was high, with many non-users indicating their intention to buy loupes.
conclusionsWithin the limits of this study the teachers were conscientious regarding their eye care, irrespective of their training and age. There was strong support for the mandatory testing of vision for all dentists and especially dental students.
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.