ArticleBritish dental journal2022
An investigation into the reliability of a mobile app designed to assess orthodontic treatment need and severity.
Article in British dental journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of AI-Driven Large Language Models for Orthodontic Aesthetic Scoring Using the IOTN-AC.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reproducibility and reliability of dental arch measurements: comparing of manual, digital, and app-based methods.BMC oral health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim To investigate reliability of the Easy IOTN app between clinicians with different levels of experience in determining Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) Dental Health Component (DHC) and Aesthetic Component (AC) scores from study models. The accuracy of each clinician in discriminating treatment need using the app against the 'gold standard' conventional assessment at the threshold of treatment acceptance criteria was also explored.Materials and methods In total, 150 sets of pre-treatment study models were assessed by six clinicians using the app on two separate occasions (T1 and T2). A single IOTN-calibrated clinician also scored the models using the conventional technique. Clinician scores for both intra- and inter-rater reliability were assessed using Cohen's Kappa. The performance of each clinician in discriminating treatment need using the app against the conventional assessment method at the threshold of treatment acceptance criteria was also assessed using the area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic.Results The intra-rater agreement for the clinician undertaking the conventional assessment of the models was 1.0. Intra-rater agreement scores for clinicians using the Easy IOTN app ranged between 0.37-0.87 (DHC) and 0.22-0.44 (AC). Inter-rater agreement scores at T2 were 0.59 (DHC) and 0.23 (AC). Based on the IOTN DHC, all clinicians displayed an excellent level of accuracy in determining malocclusions qualifying for treatment (range 81.7-90.0%). Based on the IOTN AC, all clinicians showed an acceptable level of accuracy in determining malocclusions qualifying for treatment (range 71.9-79.2%).Conclusions The Easy IOTN app was shown to have moderate inter-rater reliability. Variation in the intra-rater reliability was evident between clinicians of different grades/level of experience. Importantly, the diagnostic accuracy of the app to discriminate between malocclusions that qualify for NHS treatment was rated as excellent (IOTN DHC) and acceptable (IOTN AC) and independent of clinician grade or level of experience.
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.