ArticleGerodontology2024
Comparing approaches to determining poor oral health among older adults in a national survey.
Article in Gerodontology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing approaches to determining poor oral health among older adults in a national survey.Gerodontology · 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
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the clinical validity of the three approaches in residential care facility residents.
backgroundIn NZ residential care facilities, the interRAI assessment tool is used by trained registered nurses for assessing oral status when new residents are admitted, but its validity has been questioned. Although Locker's global oral health item has been used to measure oral health in surveys and health services research, it is not routinely used in care facilities, yet its clinical validity has been demonstrated in population-based samples. Self-perceived oral health need may also be useful. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing a secondary analysis of clinical and self-reported data from a national survey of nursing home residents (the 2012 New Zealand Older People's Oral Health Survey, or OPOHS), we compared the validity of Locker's item, the interRAI tool and self-reported treatment need for identifying three key clinical indicators of poor oral health among dentate older adults; those were coronal caries (3+ teeth affected), root caries (1+ teeth affected) and xerostomia. Analyses were conducted using STATA, and survey weighting was used to obtain estimates for a source population of 25-843 individuals.
resultsThe prevalence of 3+ teeth with coronal caries was 28.7% (23.9, 34.0), the prevalence of 1+ teeth with root caries was 33.7% (28.7, 39.0), the prevalence of xerostomia was 23.1% (18.4, 28.3). Marked gradients in prevalence risk ratio were seen across different categories of Locker's global oral health item and the interRAI assessment tooth for coronal caries and xerostomia. Locker's global oral health item gave a better fitting model and was more discriminative in detecting coronal caries than the interRAI assessment tool (Lockers AIC = 0.76, interRAI AIC = 0.81). None of the approaches was particularly discriminative for root surface caries experience.
conclusionSelf-reported approaches are discriminative for poor oral health. Standardised assessment tools used in residential care facilities should consider including a self-assessment component such as Locker's global oral health item.
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.