Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30931711›Full record

ArticleJDR clinical and translational research2019

Utilization and Validity of the Dental Diagnostic System over Time in Academic and Private Practice.

A Yansane, O Tokede, J White, J Etolue, L McClellan, M Walji, E Obadan-Udoh, E Kalenderian

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JDR clinical and translational research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

A Yansane1 Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
O Tokede2 Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
J White1 Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
J Etolue2 Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
L McClellan3 Willamette Dental Group, Portland, OR, USA.
M Walji4 Diagnostic and Biomedical Sciences Department, School of Dentistry, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
E Obadan-Udoh1 Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
E Kalenderian1 Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo fill the void created by insufficient dental terminologies, a multi-institutional workgroup was formed among members of the Consortium for Oral Health Research and Informatics to develop the Dental Diagnostic System (DDS) in 2009. The adoption of dental diagnosis terminologies by providers must be accompanied by rigorous usability and validity assessments to ensure their effectiveness in practice.

objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to describe the utilization and correct use of the DDS over a 4-y period.

methodsElectronic health record data were amassed from 2013 to 2016 where diagnostic terms and Current Dental Terminology procedure code pairs were adjudicated by calibrated dentists. With the resultant data, we report on the 4-y utilization and validity of the DDS at 5 dental institutions. Utilization refers to the proportion of instances that diagnoses are documented in a structured format, and validity is defined as the frequency of valid pairs divided by the number of all treatment codes entered.

resultsNearly 10 million procedures ( n = 9,946,975) were documented at the 5 participating institutions between 2013 and 2016. There was a 1.5-fold increase in the number of unique diagnoses documented during the 4-y period. The utilization and validity proportions of the DDS had statistically significant increases from 2013 to 2016 ( P < 0.0001). Academic dental sites were more likely to document diagnoses associated with orthodontic and restorative procedures, while the private dental site was equally likely to document diagnoses associated with all procedures. Overall, the private dental site had significantly higher utilization and validity proportions than the academic dental sites.

conclusionThe results demonstrate an improvement in utilization and validity of the DDS terminology over time. These findings also yield insight into the factors that influence the usability, adoption, and validity of dental terminologies, raising the need for more focused training of dental students. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Ensuring that providers use standardized methods for documentation of diagnoses represents a challenge within dentistry. The results of this study can be used by clinicians when evaluating the utility of diagnostic terminologies embedded within the electronic health record.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsStudents, DentalDentistsDocumentationHumansPrivate Practiceclinic managementdental educationdentistrydiagnostic terminologyelectronic health recordstandardized diagnostic terms

Identifiers

PMID30931711
PMCPMC7068742

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.