Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36309732›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2022

Patient satisfaction with e-oral health care in rural and remote settings: a systematic review.

Elham Emami, Hermina Harnagea, Richa Shrivastava, Motahareh Ahmadi, Nicolas Giraudeau

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Systematic Umbrella Review of the Effects of Teledentistry on Costs and Oral-Health Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Elham EmamiFaculty of Dental Medicine and Oral Health Sciences, McGill University, 2001 McGill College, suite 500, Montreal, QC, Canada. elham.emami@mcgill.ca.
Hermina HarnageaFaculty of Dental Medicine and Oral Health Sciences, McGill University, 2001 McGill College, suite 500, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Richa ShrivastavaFaculty of Dentistry, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Motahareh AhmadiFaculty of Dental Medicine and Oral Health Sciences, McGill University, 2001 McGill College, suite 500, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Nicolas GiraudeauUMR 5112, CEPEL, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
McGill University · CAUniversité de Montpellier · FRUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the past decade e-oral health technology has been used to address the oral health care challenges in rural and remote settings. This review systematically evaluated the literature on patient satisfaction with e-oral health care in rural and remote communities.

methodsThe systematic review included interventional and observational studies published between 1946 and 2021, in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Global Health. Patient satisfaction with received oral health care using self-reported measures, at any time after the intervention, was the main outcome of the review. The other primary outcomes were undesirable consequences of the health care (e-health or conventional) such as diagnostic error. The secondary outcomes considered were waiting time, number of visits, travel, and the cost of oral health care. Two independent researchers assessed the risk of bias using the ROBINS-I risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies.

resultsAmong 898 studies, 16 studies were included in the review. In most studies reporting patient satisfaction, all patients had shown willingness for teleconsultation for a dental problem and they were mostly satisfied due to saved travel time, saved working days, and prompt treatment onset. Most of the studies acknowledged teledentistry as a cost-effective and cost-saving method. Moreover, the teledentistry consultations showed diagnostic reliability and validity values comparable to conventional dental consultations. The majority of studies were considered level 4 and 3b, due to limited sample populations, analysis based on limited alternatives or costs, non-consistent sensitivity analysis, failure to appropriately control known confounders, and/or failure to carry out an appropriate follow-up of patients.

conclusionAvailable evidence indicates that e-oral health is associated with higher patient satisfaction and has been found to be an effective and reliable method for patients in rural and remote areas. Therefore, in these areas, the use of e-oral health should be encouraged. However, methodological inconsistencies in the current evidence suggest the need for long-term cohort studies and clinical trials, as well as cost analysis on e-oral health in rural settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42016039942.

Indexed as

Oral HealthPatient SatisfactionHumansReproducibility of ResultsRural Populatione-healthe-oral health, TeledentistryPatient satisfactionRural and remote communities

Identifiers

PMID36309732
PMCPMC9617039
OpenAlexW4307843773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.