Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35313882›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2022

The validity of self-reported number of teeth and edentulousness among Norwegian older adults, the HUNT Study.

Hedda Høvik, Marit Kolberg, Linda Gjøra, Line Cathrine Nymoen, Rasa Skudutyte-Rysstad, Lene Hystad Hove, Yi-Qian Sun, Tone Natland Fagerhaug

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Development and Initial Validation of the Oral Health Activities Questionnaire.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

8 authors.

Hedda Høvik *Center for Oral Health Services and Research, Mid-Norway (TkMidt), Trondheim, Norway. hedho@tkmidt.no.ORCID 0000-0001-5908-7372
Marit Kolberg *Center for Oral Health Services and Research, Mid-Norway (TkMidt), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3440-5503
Linda GjøraThe Norwegian National Centre for Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-4333-9322
Line Cathrine NymoenCenter for Oral Health Services and Research, Mid-Norway (TkMidt), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3640-2509
Rasa Skudutyte-RysstadOral Health Centre of Expertise in Eastern Norway, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1652-287X
Lene Hystad HoveDepartment of Cariology and Gerodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2928-5065
Yi-Qian SunCenter for Oral Health Services and Research, Mid-Norway (TkMidt), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9634-9236
Tone Natland FagerhaugCenter for Oral Health Services and Research, Mid-Norway (TkMidt), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6492-4075

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumber of teeth is an established indicator of oral health and is commonly self-reported in epidemiological studies due to the costly and labor-intensive nature of clinical examinations. Although previous studies have found self-reported number of teeth to be a reasonably accurate measure, its accuracy among older adults ≥ 70 years is less explored. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of self-reported number of teeth and edentulousness in older adults and to investigate factors that may affect the accuracy of self-reports.

methodsThis study included two different samples of older adults ≥ 70 years drawn from the fourth wave of the Trøndelag Health Study (the HUNT Study), Norway. Sample 1 (n = 586) was used to evaluate the validity of self-reported number of teeth and sample 2 (n = 518) was used to evaluate self-reported edentulousness. Information on number of teeth and background variables (education, smoking, cognitive function, and self-perceived general and oral health) were self-reported in questionnaires, while clinical oral health examinations assessed number of teeth, number of teeth restored or replaced by fixed prosthodontics and edentulousness. Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plot, chi-square test and kappa statistics were used to assess the agreement between self-reported and clinically recorded number of teeth.

resultsThe mean difference between self-reported and clinically recorded number of teeth was low (- 0.22 teeth), and more than 70% of the participants reported their number of teeth within an error of two teeth. Correlations between self-reports and clinical examinations were high for the total sample (0.86 (Spearman) and 0.91 (Pearson)). However, a lower correlation was found among participants with dementia (0.74 (Spearman) and 0.85 (Pearson)), participants having ≥ 20 teeth (0.76 (Spearman) and 0.67 (Pearson)), and participants with ≥ 5 teeth restored or replaced by fixed prosthodontics (0.75 (Spearman) and 0.77 (Pearson)). Self-reports of having teeth or being edentulous were correct in 96.3% of the cases (kappa value 0.93, p value < 0.001).

conclusionsAmong older Norwegian adults, self-reported number of teeth agreed closely with clinical tooth counts and nearly all the edentulous participants correctly reported having no teeth.

Indexed as

Mouth, EdentulousToothTooth LossAgedHumansNorwayOral HealthSelf ReportCognitive functionEdentulousEpidemiologyNumber of teethOlder adultsOral healthSelf-reportTooth countValidity

Identifiers

PMID35313882
PMCPMC8935783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.