ArticleBritish dental journal2021
The prevalence of potentially undiagnosed type II diabetes in patients with chronic periodontitis attending a general dental practice in London - a feasibility study.
Article in British dental journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of periodontitis as a predictive sign of occurrence of type-II diabetes mellitus.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- Why don't general dental practitioners test for diabetes in periodontitis patients? How infrastructure, role identity and self-efficacy can prevent effective shared care.British dental journal · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction In the UK alone, it is estimated that one in four people with type II diabetes are currently undiagnosed.Aim To investigate the prevalence of potentially undiagnosed type II diabetes in patients with chronic periodontitis attending a general dental practice in North London.Methods Patients aged 35 years and over, who had not been diagnosed with diabetes, attending for routine examination and diagnosed with chronic periodontitis, were offered screening for diabetes risk using the self-reporting Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) questionnaire. If the score showed an increased risk of developing type II diabetes, a referral letter was sent to their general medical practitioner (GMP) for formal testing. The uptake and results of the test were recorded.Results Over the 12-month period, a total of 51 patients were eligible to take part, with 40 agreeing to participate (78% participation rate). Nineteen participants (48%) were found to be at a significantly increased risk of developing type II diabetes based on the recommended FINDRISC cut-off point and were referred to their GMP for formal testing. Eleven participants (58%) scored above the FINDRISC cut-off point and were categorised as high-risk. A further six participants (32%) fell into the moderate-risk category and two participants (10%) fell into the slightly elevated-risk category. Of the 19 participants who were referred for formal testing, four were not found to have type II diabetes, nine were found to have intermediate hyperglycaemia (or prediabetes) and two participants were diagnosed with type II diabetes.Conclusions This study confirmed a method of diabetes risk screening that has a good rate of uptake by patients and is practical for use in general dental practice. A moderate proportion of patients were identified as having an increased risk of developing diabetes and just under half were referred for formal testing. The study has shown an effective method for identifying undiagnosed type II diabetes and prediabetes in patients diagnosed with periodontitis who attend general dental practice.
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.