Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36788825›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

A Comparison of Innovative App-Based Prescriptions With Conventional Prescriptions for Children by General Dentists: A Mixed Methods Study.

Shamika Kamath, Ashwin M Jawdekar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. OSRABDJ open · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
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

2 authors.

Shamika KamathDentistry, National Modern (NAMO) Medical Education and Research Institute (MERI) Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH), Silvassa, IND.
Ashwin M JawdekarPediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Writing drug prescriptions for children with accurate drug dosages and clear instructions is a must for general dentists. A digital tool in the form of a software application (app) to write, save and share prescriptions can potentially overcome the possible limitations of handwritten prescriptions such as handwriting illegibility, errors in calculations, and incomplete descriptions. However, it is also important to assess the satisfaction of dentists with making prescriptions using a digital tool such as an android application. A mixed methods study comparing an innovative "app-based" and handwritten prescriptions in dental settings is presented. Methodology An indigenously developed and piloted app "PREscribing children made EASY (PREASY)" was used in this study. Based on the preliminary study, a sample size of 20 was found to be adequate. Twenty-two dentists participated in the study. The conventional handwritten and an Android app PREASY-based prescriptions were compared in terms of the time taken, precision of writing, and satisfaction of the dentists. Qualitative feedback regarding the PREASY app was obtained in Google Forms (Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Results A study sample of 20 subjects was calculated based on a pilot study, and 22 dentists were recruited. The mean time taken in seconds for handwritten prescriptions (199.14 (+ 59.18)) was almost four times higher than that for app-based prescriptions (52.05 (+ 23.89)) (t-test, P < 0.00001). The accuracy of handwritten prescriptions versus app-based prescriptions was compared by two examiners independently using analysis of variance (ANOVA) in three domains: dosage accuracy, legible handwriting, and completeness of instructions, the differences (Domain 1 mean + SD: 1.04 + 0.89, Domain 2 mean + SD: 1.38 + 0.40, Domain 3 mean + SD: 0.88 + 0.58) being statistically significant (P < 0.05). The differences in the percentages of the three domains (dosage accuracy: 40.9%, legibility of handwriting: 63.6%, completeness of instructions: 18.1%) were found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05; chi-squared statistic, 9.4017). Of the participants, 59% were very satisfied, 36.3% were satisfied, and 4.5% were neutral (chi-squared test, P < 0.00001). Participants' feedback/comments were categorized under technical suggestions, dosage suggestions, criticism, and positive remarks and were thematically analyzed. Conclusion App-based prescriptions proved to be more instantaneous and detailed than handwritten ones with the majority of dentists satisfied. Valuable feedback pertaining to the limitations of the tool was obtained for improving the app. PREASY-based prescriptions could be recommended for prescribing to pediatric dental patients.

Indexed as

appdentaldrug dosagehealthpediatricpediatric dentistryprescriptionteledentistrytelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36788825
PMCPMC9910809

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.