Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35945292›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022

Simple flowcharts for periodontal diagnosis based on the 2018 new periodontal classification increased accuracy and clinician confidence in making a periodontal diagnosis: a randomized crossover trial.

Suphakan Pakdeesettakul, Orawan Charatkulangkun, Attawood Lertpimonchai, Hom-Lay Wang, Pimchanok Sutthiboonyapan

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Suphakan PakdeesettakulDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, 34 Henry Dunant Rd., Wangmai, Pathumwan, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand.
Orawan CharatkulangkunDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, 34 Henry Dunant Rd., Wangmai, Pathumwan, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand.
Attawood LertpimonchaiDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, 34 Henry Dunant Rd., Wangmai, Pathumwan, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand.
Hom-Lay WangDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Pimchanok SutthiboonyapanDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, 34 Henry Dunant Rd., Wangmai, Pathumwan, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand. Pimchanok.S@chula.ac.th.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4094-8210
Chulalongkorn University · THUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of the simple flowcharts for practical periodontal diagnosis based on the 2018 new periodontal classification. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this randomized two-period crossover trial, 152 participants assigned a periodontal diagnosis for 25 case scenarios using the flowcharts (test group) and using the consensus reports (control group). Self-confidence questionnaires were completed at the end of each period. Questionnaires about the perception of the flowcharts were completed at the end of the study. The accuracy of the diagnosis, the time used, and participants' confidence in assigning a diagnosis between using the flowcharts and using the consensus reports were compared.

resultsThe mixed model analysis indicated that using the flowcharts was associated with a significant increase in the accuracy of the periodontal diagnosis, compared with using the consensus reports (P = 0.008). After the subgroup analysis, a significant increase in the accuracy of the full diagnosis and the accuracy of periodontal health, gingivitis, and periodontitis identification was seen in only the dental students. The time used for making the diagnosis using flowcharts and using consensus reports was similar. The self-confidence scores significantly increased when using flowcharts for diagnosis.

conclusionsThe simple flowcharts are user-friendly tools that can aid clinicians in accurately assigning a periodontal diagnosis and improve clinicians' confidence in assigning a periodontal diagnosis using the new periodontal classification. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The flowcharts can be used for periodontal screening and assigning periodontal diagnosis using the new classification in routine practice.

Indexed as

GingivitisPeriodontal DiseasesPeriodontitisCross-Over StudiesHumansSoftware DesignClassificationDiagnosisFlowchartsGingivitisPeriodontitisStaging and grading

Identifiers

PMID35945292
OpenAlexW4292432018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.