Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32620108›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2020

Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties.

Mohtasham Ghaffari, Sakineh Rakhshanderou, Ali Ramezankhani, Yadollah Mehrabi, Ali Safari-Moradabadi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Systematic Review of Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of Oral Health Literacy Tools.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Assessment of Oral Health Literacy and Influencing Factors: Retrospective Analysis of Patients Treated by Dental Students.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Mohtasham GhaffariDepartment of Public Health, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sakineh RakhshanderouDepartment of Public Health, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ali RamezankhaniDepartment of Public Health, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Yadollah MehrabiDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ali Safari-MoradabadiDepartment of Public Health, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. alisafari_31@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8310-5160

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis article aims to provide a description of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties of the tools of oral and dental health literacy.

methodsTwo authors in this study conducted electronic searches in the Medline (via PubMed), and Embase databases to find relevant articles from 1990 to present day. Evaluation of the tools was carried out in two parts; general evaluation of the tools using skills introduced by Sørensen et al., and qualitative assessment of psychometric properties using COSMIN checklist.

resultsAfter reviewing 1839 articles on oral and dental health literacy and evaluating 33 full text articles for eligibility, 21 articles entered the study. The sample size varied from 20 to 1405 subjects and the items of each tool ranged from 11 to 99 items. Of the 21 tools examined, 16 tools were evaluated for word recognition. For the studies examined, the evaluation of COSMIN scores was often fair or good. Of the 21 tools examined, 9 tools at least in one dimension were in the category of "poor", 19 tools were in the category of "fair", 20 tools were in the category of "good", and 4 tools were in the category of "excellent" in at least one dimension.

conclusionThe findings of this study showed that some aspects of oral and dental health literacy are being ignored in the existing tools. Therefore, the authors of present study emphasize on the necessity to design and develop a comprehensive tool and take into account two characteristics of simplicity and briefness for international use.

Indexed as

Health Education, DentalOral HealthDental Health ServicesHealth BehaviorHealth LiteracyHumansPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesCOSMINDental health literacyOral health literacyPsychometric

Identifiers

PMID32620108
PMCPMC7333397

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.