ReviewBMC primary care2022
Developing and pilot testing an oral health screening tool for diabetes care providers.
Review in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consensus-based development of a short screening tool predicting oral health deterioration in older people for use by general practitioners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Screening oral health in older adults: accuracy of the Oral Health Screener for use within the interRAI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and preliminary evaluation of an oral health training program for diabetes educators: a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Cross-Sectional Comparative Assessment of Periodontal Status in Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Individuals Within a Romanian Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Attempts to Modify Periodontal Screening Models Based on a Self-Reported Oral Health Questionnaire in the Medical Care Setting.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Article
- Leveraging Dental Visits for Systemic Health: Diabetes Screening and Referral Compliance in Periodontitis Patients in Malaysia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with poorly managed diabetes are at greater risk of periodontal disease. Periodontal disease that is not effectively managed can affect glycaemic levels. Diabetes care providers, including general practitioners and diabetes educators, are encouraged to promote oral health of their clients. However, valid and reliable oral health screening tools that assess the risk of poor oral health, that are easy to administer among non-dental professionals, currently do not exist. Existing screening tools are difficult to incorporate into routine diabetes consultations due to their length. Thus, this study aimed to develop and pilot a short oral health screening tool that would identify risk of existing oral diseases and encourage appropriate referrals to the dental service.
methodsA three-item screening tool was developed after a comprehensive review of the literature and consensus from an expert panel. The tool was then piloted as part of a larger cross-sectional survey of 260 adults with diabetes who were accessing public diabetes clinics at two locations in Sydney, Australia. As part of the survey, participants completed the three-item screening tool and a 14-item validated tool, the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), which has been used previously in the preliminary validation of screening tools. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were then undertaken comparing the results of the two tools.
resultsA statistically significant correlation was found between the shorter screening tool and the OHIP-14 (rho = 0.453, p < 0.001), indicating adequate validity. The three-item tool had high sensitivity (90.5%, 95% CI 84.9%, 94.7%), with a specificity of 46.3% (95% CI 37.7%, 55.2%). The negative predictive value was 81.4% (95% CI 71.3, 89.3). No single item performed as well regarding sensitivity and negative predictive value when compared to the three items collectively.
conclusionsThe three-item screening tool developed was found to be valid and sensitive in identifying risk of poor oral health, requiring oral health referrals, among people with diabetes in this pilot. This is a simple, accessible tool that diabetes care providers could incorporate into their routine consultations. Further validation against comprehensive dental assessments is needed to reassess the tool's specificity and sensitivity in diverse settings.
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.