ArticleBritish dental journal2019
The appropriateness of oral surgery referrals and treatment in contracted intermediate minor oral surgery practices in East Kent.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective data analysis of referral letters for orofacial vascular anomalies to a tertiary center.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives To assess the appropriateness of oral surgery referrals, after triage, to intermediate minor oral surgery (IMOS) practices in East Kent and whether or not referrals vary according to the referring general dental practitioner's (GDP's) place of qualification and experience.Design A retrospective study of the records of 441 triaged referrals sent to three IMOS practices in East Kent, over a ten-week period. An assessment tool was developed in line with local and national referral guidelines. Information on all referrals was obtained from the IMOS provider and referral records. Descriptive analysis of the data was performed.Results The most common reason for referral was for extraction of teeth requiring bone removal (n = 155; 35%). However, the majority of teeth removed were recorded as a non-surgical extraction (n = 363; 82%). Medical histories were included appropriately in the referral communications, with only 0.2% of all referrals being inappropriate. The proportion of appropriate and inappropriate referrals was very similar and it was found that referral rate was lower from dentists who had been qualified for more than ten years. GDPs working in the same location as the IMOS provider made a greater total number of referrals as well as more inappropriate referrals.Conclusions In the group of GDPs and IMOS providers studied, a wide variation was observed between the GDP's reason for referral and the treatment provided. It may be concluded that the vast majority of extractions were safely completed in an IMOS dental practice in a primary care setting.
Indexed as
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.