ArticleBritish dental journal2020
Patients' perception of using a smartphone light source in the clinical environment.
Article in British dental journal, 2020. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction A satisfactory light source is of paramount importance during an oral head and neck examination. It has become common practice for the light source on a smartphone to be used during inpatient intra-oral examination. We determined if patients identified the use of a smartphone as a light source, during head and neck examinations, as unprofessional.Methods and materials A clinical photograph illustrating professional errors was presented to patients as a pilot survey (n = 10); a smartphone camera flash being used as a light source was featured. Patients were then asked which aspects they considered unprofessional. Following staff training and improvements to the survey wording, the same photo was presented to patients (n = 150) as the main study.Results Of the patients surveyed, 97% considered the use of a smartphone in the staged clinical photograph as unprofessional. They also noted: a clinician sitting on the bed (88%), clinicians not wearing gloves (81%), lack of privacy/curtain not drawn (62%), long hair not tied back (50%), a clinician's name badge not visible (23%), clinician bare below the elbows (15%) and clinician not wearing a tie (12%).Conclusions This is the first piece of research into the use of a smartphone light source within clinical examination. The use of a smart phone light source during clinical examination was the most reported 'error' and was recognised more than a clinician not wearing gloves. Eighty-five percent of patients considered the use of a smartphone light source unprofessional. Authors, therefore, do not advocate the use of a smartphone light source in the clinical care of patients.
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.