ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2019
Quality measures for dental care: A systematic review.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS were searched. Reference lists of the included publications were screened to identify other potentially relevant documents.Study selection Articles published from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2017. There was no language restriction for full-text articles as long as they had a title, abstract and description of the quality measures in English. Publications that either described the development process or described the clinimetric properties of oral healthcare quality measures for general dental care were included. Publications were only included if numerators and denominators of the quality measures were defined or could be directly derived. Editorials, randomised controlled trials, conference abstracts and letters to the editor were excluded.Data extraction and synthesis Two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts. Information included study purpose, the country of origin, methods used to develop measures and stakeholder involvement. The data considered included the number of quality measures developed, the description, numerators and denominators of the measures and the type of quality measure as described by Donabedian ie process, structure or outcome measure. The Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument 2.0 was then used to appraise the scientific soundness and applicability of the measuresResults Twenty-four publications were included yielding 215 quality measures. AIRE scores ranged from 38 to 78 out of 80 possible points. The majority of measures (n = 71) referred to treatment and preventive services. Comparably, few measures referred to the domain patient safety (n = 3). The development process of measures often exhibited a lack of involvement of patients and dental professionals. Few projects reported on the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 3) of the measures. Four projects piloted the measures for implementation in practice.Conclusions Provides an overview of existing quality measures in oral healthcare. Potential opportunities include the piloting and testing of quality measures and transparent data reporting on the quality of oral healthcare.
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.