ArticleJournal of dentistry2024
Comparison of factors associated with the evidence-practice gap as perceived by Japanese and Brazilian dentists.
Article in Journal of dentistry, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo identify 1) factors of the evidence-practice gap (EPG) in Japan and Brazil as perceived by dentists and compare these factors between two countries, and 2) mechanisms to close this EPG.
methodsThe study employed a cross-sectional design by administering a web-based questionnaire to 136 Japanese and 110 Brazilian dentists. The survey queried dentists' reports of which factors possibly cause an EPG, using a newly developed 20-item questionnaire.
resultsAn international comparison of 20 items related to factors of the EPG between Japan and Brazil revealed that "Dentists' own experiences are sometimes given priority over evidence" and "Dentists' own thoughts are sometimes given priority over evidence" were common factors to both countries, with over 80 % agreement. In logistic regression, "Insufficient opportunity to learn about evidence in dental education at universities", "Evidence-based treatments are sometimes not covered by the dental insurance system", and "Insufficient evidence which helps dentists choose an appropriate treatment for a patient after careful consideration of his/her own background" were significantly associated with the EPG in Japan (p < 0.05). In Brazil, "Insufficient case reports in which evidence-based dentistry (EBD) is applied to clinical practice" and "Image-based information and devices used for diagnosis vary depending on individual dentists" were significantly associated with the EPG (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThis study suggests that EPG could be improved in Japan: by promoting EBD education at universities, improving the dental insurance system, and accumulating evidence according to patient background; and in Brazil: by promoting EBD case reports and standardizing diagnostic information and devices. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Two factors of EPG common to Japan and Brazil, namely the prioritization of dentists' own "experiences" and "thoughts" over evidence, are urgent issues for improving EPG. In addition, it will be necessary to address the country-specific factors of EPG that were identified in this study.
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.