Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32041605›Full record

Trial reportBMC oral health2020

Cost-effectiveness of child caries management: a randomised controlled trial (FiCTION trial).

Tara Homer, Anne Maguire, Gail V A Douglas, Nicola P Innes, Jan E Clarkson, Nina Wilson, Vicky Ryan, Elaine McColl, Mark Robertson, Luke Vale

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tara HomerPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. tara.homer@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6664-0671
Anne MaguireSchool of Dental Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Gail V A DouglasDental School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Nicola P InnesSchool of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Jan E ClarksonDental Health Services Research Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Nina WilsonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Vicky RyanPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Elaine McCollPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Mark RobertsonSchool of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Luke ValePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Newcastle University · GBUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health 07/44/03Health Technology Assessment Programme 07/44/03Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA three-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial set in general dental practices in England, Scotland, and Wales was undertaken to evaluate three strategies to manage dental caries in primary teeth. Children, with at least one primary molar with caries into dentine, were randomised to receive Conventional with best practice prevention (C + P), Biological with best practice prevention (B + P), or best practice Prevention Alone (PA).

methodsData on costs were collected via case report forms completed by clinical staff at every visit. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of, and number of episodes of, dental pain and/or infection avoided. The three strategies were ranked in order of mean cost and a more costly strategy was compared with a less costly strategy in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%.

resultsA total of 1144 children were randomised with data on 1058 children (C + P n = 352, B + P n = 352, PA n = 354) used in the analysis. On average, it costs £230 to manage dental caries in primary teeth over a period of up to 36 months. Managing children in PA was, on average, £19 (97.5% CI: -£18 to £55) less costly than managing those in B + P. In terms of effectiveness, on average, there were fewer incidences of, (- 0.06; 97.5% CI: - 0.14 to 0.02) and fewer episodes of dental pain and/or infection (- 0.14; 97.5% CI: - 0.29 to 0.71) in B + P compared to PA. C + P was unlikely to be considered cost-effective, as it was more costly and less effective than B + P.

conclusionsThe mean cost of a child avoiding any dental pain and/or infection (incidence) was £330 and the mean cost per episode of dental pain and/or infection avoided was £130. At these thresholds B + P has the highest probability of being considered cost-effective. Over the willingness to pay thresholds considered, the probability of B + P being considered cost-effective never exceeded 75%.

trial registrationThe trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN (reference number ISRCTN77044005) on the 26th January 2009 and East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approved (REC reference: 12/ES/0047).

Indexed as

ChildCost-Benefit AnalysisDental CareDental CariesEnglandHumansIncidencePediatric DentistryProspective StudiesScotlandWalesCariesCaries treatmentClinical studies/trialsDental public healthEconomic evaluationPediatric dentistry

Identifiers

PMID32041605
PMCPMC7011536
OpenAlexW3008846098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.