SynthesisBMC oral health2022
Measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility of instruments measuring oral health and orofacial pain in dependent adults: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-Reported Items That Predict the Risk of Oral Health Deterioration and the Need for Dental Referral in Older People: A Systematic Review.Gerodontology · 2025Pooled it
- Measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility of instruments measuring oral health and orofacial pain in dependent adults: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2022Pooled it
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the physical oral health index in Chinese older inpatients.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Alzheimer's Disease and Oral Health from Clinical Challenges to Interdisciplinary Care: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Modified Oral Health Assessment Tool (M-OHAT) for Residential Aged Care: A Co-Design Protocol.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Are orofacial pain assessment tools for adults who cannot self-report pain suitable for dental practice? A scoping review.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDependent adults have been shown to have a greater experience of oral health deterioration and orofacial pain. This is partly because their non-dental caregivers may not easily identify oral health problems and orofacial pain experienced by them. Thus, this systematic review aimed to investigate measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility of instruments assessing oral health and orofacial pain in dependent adults, which can be used by the non-dental caregivers to establish oral care plans for those who are dependent upon them.
methodsSeven bibliographic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, HTA, OATD and OpenGrey. Citations and reference lists of the included studies were also manually searched. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and then full texts. A quality assessment of included studies was conducted independently by two authors using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. The best evidence synthesis method was used to synthesise results from different studies for each measurement property per measurement instrument by integrating the overall rating for each measurement property per measurement instrument with its quality level of evidence.
resultsNineteen eligible studies were included, which reported the development, measurement properties' evaluation, interpretability and feasibility of nine oral health and three orofacial pain measurement instruments. Methodological quality of the included studies ranged from very good to inadequate. None of the identified measurement instruments has been adequately and comprehensively tested.
conclusionsWhile several measurement instruments were identified in this systematic review, more evidence is needed to be able to more comprehensively evaluate these instruments. Among those identified, the OPS-NVI demonstrated sufficient construct validity, while the OHAT and the THROAT demonstrated sufficient reliability. These instruments therefore have potential for future use with more confidence once other measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility have been sufficiently tested and evaluated.
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.