Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30796401›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2019

Dental practice in the UK in 2015/2016. Part 4: changes since 2002?

F J Trevor Burke, Nairn H F Wilson, Paul A Brunton, Siobhan Creanor

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British dental journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

F J Trevor BurkeCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, Primary Dental Care Research Group, University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, 5 Mill Pool Way, Pebble Mill, B5 7EG, Birmingham, UK. f.j.t.burke@bham.ac.uk.
Nairn H F WilsonEmeritus Professor of Dentistry, King's College London, London, UK.
Paul A BruntonSir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, 310 Great King Street, 9054, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Siobhan CreanorMedical Statistics, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth Science Park, 1 Davy Road, PL6 8BX, Plymouth, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives To determine, by means of anonymous self-report questionnaires, the changes in demographic profile, practising details and utilisation of clinical techniques/materials of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the UK between 2002 and 2015. Method A wide-ranging, validated questionnaire, designed to elicit information on the practising arrangements and techniques and materials used, was distributed to UK-based GDPs in 2002, 2008 and 2015 with a request that they complete the questionnaire and return it by post in the reply-paid envelope to the corresponding author. Results Questionnaires were distributed by post to 1,000 UK-based GDPs in 2004 and 2008, with an additional 500 questionnaires being distributed at postgraduate meetings in 2015. Response rates of 70%, 66% and 78% were achieved, respectively. Of the respondents, 73% were male in 2002, while 67% and 60% were male in 2008 and 2015, respectively. In 2002, 65% were practice principals, falling to 51% in 2015. Regarding how patients paid for their dental care, 86% of respondents in 2002 treated patients within the NHS arrangements, compared with 57% and 50% in 2008 and 2015, respectively. The data collected in 2015 indicated that 55% of respondents had an intra-oral camera; while, with regard to recently introduced concepts and techniques, 80% used nickel-titanium files, 47% used zirconia-based bridgework, 25% used tricalcium silicate, and 17% used CAD/CAM restoration. Of great interest, perhaps, is the response to digital radiography/imaging, with the results indicating that, by 2015, 74% of respondents used this form of radiography. Conclusion Results from the three surveys indicated that NHS service provision has dropped to 50%. Regarding the staffing of dental practices, just over half the respondents were practice principals. The results also indicated that UK dentists continue to be innovative and forward-looking in the techniques that they employ.

Identifiers

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.