Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31925370›Full record

ReviewBritish dental journal2020

An assessment of three contemporary dental caries epidemiological instruments: a critical review.

Jo E Frencken, Rodrigo A Giacaman, Soraya C Leal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in British dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Agrawal and Shah Modified Cast Index - A Novel Index Assessing Prevalence of Dental Caries and Treatment Needs of the Adult Indian Population.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
    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.

Jo E FrenckenDepartment of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dental Science, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. jo.frencken@radboudumc.nl.
Rodrigo A GiacamanCariology Unit, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Talca, Talca, Chile.
Soraya C LealDepartment of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasília, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim Dental caries epidemiological surveys produce information that may be used to assist health policy makers in the planning of preventive and curative strategies. The detection instruments used in these surveys should be able to identify the correct, true stage of the disease or medical condition. This makes it essential that valid instruments are used. This study aimed to critically review commonly used visual/tactile caries assessment instruments in epidemiological surveys with respect to their manageability, reproducibility and validity, and how results are reported.Method A Pubmed search identified the following international visual/tactile instruments for caries detection more than once between 2013 and 2018: World Health Organisation (WHO), International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) and Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST).Results The review revealed that the WHO instrument can be considered a screening instrument, that the ICDAS instrument lacks sufficient validity and takes time to apply and that the CAST instrument is promising, but requires further field testing before it can be considered a fully proven caries-assessment instrument in epidemiology. It is recommended that calculating caries prevalence should be based on the presence of cavitated dentine carious lesions, that the prevalence of enamel carious lesions be reported separately and that the dmf/DMF index not be used in its current form.Conclusion Researchers/dentists should be knowledgeable of the limitations and advantages of common caries assessment instruments. Caries prevalence should not be based on the dmf/DMF index but on cavitated dentine carious lesions (d/D-component) as the M- and F-component do not refer to a disease stage.

Indexed as

Dental CariesDental Health SurveysDMF IndexHumansPrevalenceReproducibility of Results

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.