ArticleBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences2022
[Constructions of the scale of difficulty in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars by using Delphi method].
Article in Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a Chinese insulin medication literacy scale for patients with diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- A data-driven method for surgeon-specific difficulty assessment in third molar extraction.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Research on the construction of an indicator system for physical education teaching abilities of preschool teachers.Frontiers in psychology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the relevant indicators affecting difficulty in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars and score difficulty of different operation and risk indicators, so as to build an intuitive and accurate scale to help operators make more accurate analysis and prediction of difficulty before the operation.
methodsBased on literature and the clinical review, the difficulty indicators of tooth extraction were summarized. Firstly, 10 doctors from Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology who had been engaged in alveolar surgery for a long time established an expert nominal group, and then rated whether the summarized indicators needed to be retained in the form of face-to-face questionnaires. A level 1 and 2 item frame for evaluating difficulty in the tooth extraction was formed after discussion; Then Delphi method was used to send a questionnaire to 30 experts by e-mail. After two rounds of scoring and modification, the scale of difficulty in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars was formed.
resultsThe recycling rate of two rounds of questionnaires was 100.0%, which showed that the experts were very enthusiastic about the study; The authority coefficients (Cr) of the two rounds of Delphi expert consultation were both 0.92, which showed that the results were representative and authoritative. After two rounds of grading and revision, the variable coefficient (CV) decreased and the Kendall's concordance coefficient (W) increased, which were statistically significant: In the first round, the CV was 0.24 and W was 0.56 (
conclusionBased on comprehensive literature retrieval, the study has put forward the concept that difficulty in the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars is composed of operation difficulty and risk difficulty. Using Delphi method, the long-term clinical experience and professional knowledge of experts are transformed into quantitative indicators as a scoring scale. The scale has certain representativeness and authority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35165475PMC8860643What 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.