Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35063174›Full record

ArticleThe journal of evidence-based dental practice2022

STANDARDIZATION OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT USING OHIP-5 - VALIDATION OF "RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE AND SCORING OF ORAL HEALTH IMPACT PROFILE VERSIONS".

M T John

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of evidence-based dental practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

M T JohnDepartment of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Min, USA; Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Min, USA. Electronic address: johnx055@umn.edu.
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

Development of a PROMIS measure for adult dental patientsR01DE028059 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI JOHN, MIKE · 2019 to 2023
$3.1M
Dimensions of Oral Health-Related Quality of LifeR01DE022331 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI JOHN, MIKE · 2012 to 2015
$1.8M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE022331NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE028059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, "Recommendations for use and scoring of Oral Health Impact Profile versions" (here abbreviated as Recommendations Project) were proposed by an international group of oral health researchers to standardize assessment of perceived oral health. They recommended a four-dimensional measurement approach consisting of Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact as the set of dental patient-reported outcomes to be measured with the 5-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-5).

aimThis study aimed to validate the "Recommendations for use and scoring of Oral Health Impact Profile versions" by replicating the findings they are based on.

methodsOHIP data came from the "Dimensions of OHRQoL Project." Its Validation Sample (5,022 prosthodontic patients and general population subjects) as well as its Additional Sample (N = 583 prosthodontic patients and general population subjects) were used. Validation of the Recommendations Project's findings was performed in two steps. First, correlations among OHIP versions presented in the Recommendations Project were replicated in the Validation Sample. Second, participants of the Additional Sample were subjected to a hypothetical treatment program that assigned two treatments to them according to their level of perceived oral health impact using OHIP versions. The performance of abbreviated OHIP versions was evaluated.

resultsThe high correlations among summary scores of 5-, 14-, 19-, and 49-item OHIP versions (r = 0.91-0.98), found in the Recommendations Project, were replicated. All short OHIP versions performed similarly when classifying participants for a hypothetical tailored treatment program.

conclusionsFindings reported in "Recommendations for use and scoring of Oral Health Impact Profile versions" were validated, thus supporting the feasibility of a standardized assessment of perceived oral health in all settings across all oral diseases. Psychometrically solid and practical assessment can be performed with OHIP-5.

Indexed as

Oral HealthQuality of LifeHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresReference StandardsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35063174
PMCPMC9123939
OpenAlexW3203926777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.