ArticleBritish dental journal2022
Variations in provision of dental general anaesthetic for children in England.
Article in British dental journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 397 631 elective dental admissions among the under-25s in England: a retrospective study.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Estimated impact of the UK soft drinks industry levy on childhood hospital admissions for carious tooth extractions: interrupted time series analysis.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Dental general anaesthetic (DGA) remains one of the main modalities to deliver treatment to paediatric patients. The main central registry system which is used as a proxy measure of DGA provision is the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data on hospital admission of children for dental extractions. This database does not accurately reflect the number of DGAs as it omits non-hospital-based providers and the data includes treatment under sedation.Aims The aim is to describe the paediatric DGA service provision across England and determine type of provider (NHS Trusts or Community Dental Services [CDSs]), type of lists (extraction or comprehensive care) and the speciality planning the service.Methods Potential providers were identified using the provider-level analysis in HES database (for NHS trusts) and the NHS Business Services Authority and internet-based search engine (for CDS providers). All potential providers were contacted (n = 204) and provided with a pro forma to collect data.Results Response rate was 82% and 115 providers confirmed provision of paediatric DGA. These were mostly NHS trusts (72%). Not all providers appeared in the HES database (25%). Half of the providers provided separate lists for exodontia versus comprehensive care. Only 32% of the lists were planned by specialists in paediatric dentistry. All regions, apart from London, had some comprehensive care lists planned by non-paediatric dentists.Conclusion The results highlighted the inaccuracies in the HES, variation in service provision across England and the lack of paediatric speciality-led DGA services. Paediatric DGA needs to be better recorded and commissioned.
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.