ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Instruments to Measure Betel Quid Dependency among Young and Adult Chewers - A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Betel quid (BQ) consumption is prevalent globally, majorly consumed in South-Asia and South-East Asian countries. Among the other country studies done on BQ, the focus has been on its consumption prevalence, its physiological and psychological effects, and aids to discontinue this habit. Systematic literature research on suitability of different instruments (metric or scale) to measure BQ dependency is scarce, hence pointing to the need of more evidence-based studies in this domain. Aim: The aim of the article was to identify the instruments used in the published literature to measure BQ dependency among young and adult chewers and draw a comparison. Methodology: The electronic retrieval systems and databases PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched independently by two authors from January 2011 to September 2022 for the collection of desired data. Results: Among 1271 articles, 337 were duplicates and removed, 866 did not meet selection criteria. Out of 68 articles, 57 were excluded due to the lack of relevant data. Finally, only 11 articles were included for the analysis in this systematic review. Conclusion: Due to a scarcity of researches in this direction, no scale can be assigned as the best Dependence Scale, thus necessitating more such systematic reviews and meta-analysis for better comprehension and usage of present dependence scales.
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.