Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31102156›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2019

A systematic scoping review of oral health models.

Stella Sekulic, Nicole Theis-Mahon, Ksenija Rener-Sitar

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Management of the oral hemangiomas in infants and children: Scoping review.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2020
    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

3 authors.

Stella SekulicDepartment of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. ssekulic@umn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9730-741X
Nicole Theis-MahonHealth Sciences Libraries, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Ksenija Rener-SitarDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this systematic scoping review was to identify, analyze, and compare existing generic oral health models in English scientific dental literature.

methodsWe conducted a literature search in five databases, Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Web of Science, using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria and calculated the interrater agreement coefficient "prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa" (PABAK). We identified, reviewed, and displayed the generic oral health models in review tables.

resultsOf the 3498 references identified, 13 oral health models from seven countries met the inclusion criteria. The interrater agreement coefficient resulted in a ''substantial agreement'' (PABAK = 0.80). Ten of the 13 (77%) generic oral health models were developed in English-speaking countries. All models were multidimensional and contained from two to 12 dimensions. Four models presented linear conception, and we observed non-linear conception in six models. Authors presented the unidirectional or reciprocal relations between dimensions in six models, and five models, respectively. Two models did not show models' relation or conception. Researchers used only experts (N = 1), literature (N = 2), dental patients (N = 2), or general population subjects (N = 3), or a combination of these sources (N = 5) for development of their generic oral health models. Statistical analyses supported the majority of the models (N = 8).

conclusionsThe identified 13 oral health models vary substantially in their characteristics. This systematic scoping review of generic oral health models provides a toolbox, from which dental researchers can choose the theoretical model they consider fit best their oral health concept they want to investigate. Ideally, the international dental community will come soon to an agreement of accepting one oral health model, and this will provide an opportunity for comparison of outcomes across studies and populations and thus elevate dentistry to a higher evidence-based level.

Indexed as

HumansOral HealthQuality of LifeBiomedical modelsConceptual modelsFrameworksModels of oral health-related quality of lifeOral health-related quality of life

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.