ArticleBMC oral health2022
Patients' awareness regarding the quality of their oral hygiene: development and validation of a new measurement instrument.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- It is the habit not the handle that affects tooth brushing - a randomised counterbalanced cross over study with young and healthy adults.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- "You should brush your teeth better": a randomized controlled trial comparing best-possible versus as-usual toothbrushing.BMC oral health · 2023Trial
- Oral health-related quality of life among reproductive-aged women with HIV in the southern United States.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2026Article
- Making plaque assessment easier - a validation study of simplified versions of the Marginal Plaque Index.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Assessing sugar intake rapidly - a short form of the Marburg Sugar Index (MSI).BMC oral 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present research aimed to develop and validate a standardised survey instrument for the assessment of patients' awareness of the quality of their oral hygiene performance.
methodsA digital questionnaire was developed that assesses both patients' naïve self-perceptions of oral cleanliness (SPOC
resultsAll study groups accepted the questionnaire well; average answering times were less than 5 min. Cronbach's α exceeds 0.90; correlational analyses support the discriminant validity regarding oral hygiene related self-efficacy expectations and stages of change; manipulation of oral hygiene behaviour results in the expected changes of SPOC scores. Patients' SPOC correlate only moderately with actual oral cleanliness. The comparison between SPOC
conclusionsThe SPOC questionnaire is an easy-to-use, well-accepted, reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of patients' awareness of the quality of their oral hygiene for research and clinical purposes. The results of the questionnaire may help to reveal unrealistic self-perceptions of patients regarding their oral hygiene. It can raise their awareness of the need to improve their skills and/or efforts in this regard. Trial registration The third study was an interventional study and was registered in the appropriate national register ( www.drks.de ; ID: DRKS00018781; date of registration: 12/09/2019).
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.