ArticleCaries research2021
Routine Data Analyses for Estimating the Caries Treatment Experience of Children.
Article in Caries research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral health surveys are considered the gold standard for assessing the caries experience of children. Analyses of routine data offer additional opportunities not yet fully explored. This study aimed at estimating the caries treatment experience by mining an insurance claims database. Comprehensive claims data sets were extracted from the data warehouse of a major health insurance company (BARMER, Germany). A surrogate variable for caries experience was formed that reflected the proportion of children without any former potentially caries-related treatment (filling, root canal treatment, and extraction) at ages from 1 to 14 years. The statistical calculations were based on Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. The evaluation for the permanent dentition comprised N = 593,330 children at 6 years and N = 114,568 at 12 years. At 12 years of age, 66.8% had not yet experienced potentially caries-related treatments. This value hints at a significantly higher caries experience at 12 years compared to available epidemiological data. For the deciduous dentition, the respective rates were 74.0% at 6 years and 45.8% at 10 years. Although various sources of bias have to be taken into account, the potential of routine data mining is evident. The approach is supplemental to oral health surveys. It can be useful in coming closer to reality when estimating the caries experience of children. From our results, we conclude that the oral health of up to 14-year-olds in Germany remains in urgent need of improvement.
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.