ArticlePatient related outcome measures2020
Oral Health Screening Status of Diabetes Patients in Selected Hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2018.
Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tooth brushing practice in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Randomised controlled trials on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in African countries: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Exploring oral health related awareness, perceptions, practices and experiences among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a mixed method design.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study assessed the oral health screening status of diabetes patients and its associated factors in selected public hospitals of Addis Ababa, 2018. PATIENTS AND
methodsAn institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted on 388 diabetes patients selected on the bases of a systematic random sampling method from March to May 2018 at two selected public hospitals in Addis Ababa. Data were collected with a pre-tested, structured, and translated questionnaire. Bi-variable and multivariable logistics regression were undertaken to identify predictors of oral health screening among diabetes with their respective 95% CI and a p-value of less than 5% level of significance.
resultsThe oral health screening status among diabetes patients in this study was 21.1%. The odds of having had an oral health screening was 82.4% higher in those with an educational status of college and above than those who cannot read and write and it was ten and five folds higher in participants with a monthly income of less than 750 birr than those with above 2,000 birr and those who brushed their tooth twice or more times a day than occasionally, respectively. The odds of having had an oral health screening was 17, four, and five folds higher among participants with perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, and benefit, respectively, whilst it was 8.8% lower in participants with a perceived barrier and it was as high as 19.782 times among participants with malocclusion.
conclusionA lower level of oral health screening was observed. A higher educational level, a lower monthly income, a higher frequency of tooth brushing per day, positive perceptions of susceptibility, severity, and benefits, and presence of malocclusions were statistically associated with a higher frequency of oral health screening. Concerned bodies were recommended to work on the identified predictors and improve the oral health screening of diabetes 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.