ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2022
Comparison of two rating scales with the orofacial esthetic scale and practical recommendations for its application.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perception of Orofacial Esthetics Using a Scan-Free Virtual Video Mock-Up: A Comparative Analysis of Self-Evaluation Versus Unknown-People Assessment.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of a smile aesthetics scale for Peruvian stomatology students.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Differential Item Functioning of the Jaw Functional Limitation ScaleJournal of oral & facial pain and headache · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe compared measurement properties of 5-point and 11-point response formats for the orofacial esthetic scale (OES) items to determine whether collapsing the format would degrade OES score precision.
methodsData were collected from a consecutive sample of adult dental patients from HealthPartners dental clinics in Minnesota (N = 2,078). We fitted an Item Response Theory (IRT) model to the 11-point response format and the six derived 5-point response formats. We compared all response formats using test (or scale) information, correlation between the IRT scores, Cronbach's alpha estimates for each scaling format, correlations based on the observed scores for the seven OES items and the eighth global item, and the relationship of observed and IRT scores to an external criterion using orofacial appearance (OA) indicators from the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP).
resultsThe correlations among scores based on the different response formats were uniformly high for observed (0.97-0.99) and IRT scores (0.96-0.99); as were correlations of both observed and IRT scores and the OHIP measure of OA (0.66-0.68). Cronbach's alpha based on any of the 5-point formats (α = 0.95) was nearly the same as that based on the 11-point format (α = 0.96). The weighted total information area for five of six derived 5-point response formats was 98% of that for the 11-point response format.
conclusionsOur results support the use of scores based on a 5-point response format for the OES items. The measurement properties of scores based on a 5-point response format are comparable to those of scores based on the 11-point response format.
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.