ArticleBDJ open2023
Cross-cultural translation and modification of the revised oral assessment guide for oral health assessment by non-dentists.
Article in BDJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic surveillance of poor oral hygiene in vulnerable patients at pneumonia risk.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Observational
- Oral condition at admission predicts functional outcomes and hospital-acquired pneumonia development among acute ischemic stroke patients.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
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
objectivesThis study aimed to conduct a cross-cultural translation of the revised oral assessment guide (ROAG) into Thai language and to modify the tool to increase its validity and reliability. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present study was a cross-sectional design conducted in dental and hospitalized patients, and community-dwelling people. The original English-version of the ROAG was translated into Thai, which was evaluated for validity and reliability. The tool was then revised to develop the modified ROAG for non-dentist (ndROAG) comprising 9 oral assessment categories with a three-level response; healthy, mild, and severe alteration. The criterion validity of the ndROAG was tested in 82 adult and older participants, and 46 non-dentists comprising dental assistants, dental hygienists, community health volunteers, and nurses, using a calibrated dentist as the reference standard. The ndROAG was translated back into an English version. The criterion validity was evaluated using weighted Kappa (K
resultsThe K
conclusionThe original ROAG was translated and revised into the ndROAG with improved validity and reliability. The ndROAG can be used by non-dentists to assess the oral health of adult and older individuals to detect oral changes, which includes self-care instructions and patient referral guidance.
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.