Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30926102›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of evidence-based dental practice2019

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adult Dental Patients: A Systematic Review.

Hina Mittal, Mike T John, Stella Sekulić, Nicole Theis-Mahon, Ksenija Rener-Sitar

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of evidence-based dental practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Driving emerging technology to clinical impact.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Hina MittalDepartment of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Mike T JohnDepartment of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Stella SekulićDepartment of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Interdisciplinary Doctoral Programme in Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, EU, Slovenia.
Nicole Theis-MahonHealth Sciences Libraries, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Ksenija Rener-SitarDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, EU, Slovenia; Department of Prosthodontics, University Dental Clinics, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, EU, Slovenia. Electronic address: ksenija.rener@mf.uni-lj.si.

Funding

Dimensions of Oral Health-Related Quality of LifeR01DE022331 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI JOHN, MIKE · 2012 to 2015
$1.8M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE022331
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used beside disease-oriented outcomes (eg, number of teeth, clinical attachment level) to better capture the impact of diseases or interventions. To assess PROs for dental patients (dPROs), dental PRO measures (dPROMs) are applied. The aim of this systematic review was to identify generic dPROMs for adult patients and the dPROs.

methodsThis systematic review searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases along with hand searching, through December 2017, to identify English-language, multi-item dPROMs that are oral health generic, that is, they are applicable to a broad range of adult patients.

resultsWe identified 20 questionnaires that contained 36 unique dPROs. They were measured by 53 dPROMs. dPRO names (N = 36) suggested they could be grouped into four dPRO categories: (1) Oral Function (N = 11), Orofacial Pain (N = 7), Orofacial Appearance (N = 3), and Psychosocial Impact (N = 14), as well as an additional dPRO that represented perceived oral health in general. Only eight questionnaires had a specific recall or reference period. dPROM's score dimensionality was only investigated in 13 of the 20 questionnaires.

conclusionsThe identified 36 dPROs represent the major aspects of an adult dental patient's oral health experience; however, four major dPRO categories, that is, Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact, summarize how patients are impacted. If multi-item, oral health-generic dPROMs are to be used to measure patients' suffering, the 53 dPROMs represent current available tools. Limitations of the majority of these dPROMs include incomplete knowledge about their dimensionality, which affects their validity, and an unspecified recall period, which reduces their clinical applicability.

Indexed as

Dental CareOral HealthPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultDiagnosis, OralHumansQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesDimensionalityOral healthPatient-reported outcomePatient-reported outcome measureQuality of lifeQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID30926102
PMCPMC6442935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.