Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35442091›Full record

Trial reportJDR clinical and translational research2023

Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial.

Y Anopa, L M D Macpherson, A D McMahon, W Wright, D I Conway, E McIntosh

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JDR clinical and translational research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Y AnopaCollege of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
L M D MacphersonCollege of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7227-2991
A D McMahonCollege of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
W WrightCollege of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
D I ConwayCollege of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7762-4063
E McIntoshHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn economic evaluation (EE) was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial (the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Study [PT@3]), exploring the additional preventive value of fluoride varnish (FV) application at 6-monthly intervals in nursery schools compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in the same nurseries. TAU represented a multicomponent national child oral health improvement intervention, the Childsmile program, apart from nursery FV.

methodsThe EE was a within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing the FV and TAU groups. The CUA was conducted from a National Health Service perspective and followed relevant methods guidance. Within-trial costs included intervention costs and health care resource use costs. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued over the 2-y follow-up period. The Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions questionnaire was used to obtain utility scores. National reference costs were used, a discount rate of 1.5% for public health interventions was adopted, multiple imputation methods for missing data were employed, sensitivity analyses were conducted, and incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated.

resultsData from 534 participants from the 2014-2015 PT@3 intake were used in the EE analyses,

conclusionThe results indicate that applying FV in nurseries in addition to TAU (all other components of Childsmile, apart from nursery FV) would not be deemed cost-effective given current UK thresholds. In view of previously proven clinical effectiveness and economic worthiness of the universal nursery toothbrushing component of Childsmile, continuation of the additional, targeted nursery FV component in its pre-COVID-19 form should be reviewed given its low probability of cost-effectiveness. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this study can be used by child oral health policy makers and dental public health professionals. They can form part of the evidence to inform the Scottish, UK, and international guidance on community-based child oral health promotion programs.

Indexed as

COVID-19Dental CariesChildCost-Benefit AnalysisFluoridesHumansState MedicineFluorideschild healthcost-effectiveness analysiscost-utility analysisdental cariesfluoridespublic health

Identifiers

PMID35442091
PMCPMC10285425
OpenAlexW4224243407

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.