ArticleInternational dental journal2025
Validating Caries Risk Assessment Tools in High-Prevalence Filipino Toddlers.
Article in International dental journal, 2025. 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.
- Predictive validity and cost-effectiveness analysis of two caries risk assessment tools for preschool children.BMC oral health · 2025Article
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
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsCaries risk assessment is an essential part of the diagnostic process. Many studies have assessed these tools, proving their effectiveness in reducing future caries risk in developed countries with low caries prevalence. However, Filipino children have consistently registered high caries prevalence rates in successive official surveys. This prospective study aimed to compare the validity of available caries risk assessment tools in predicting future caries among a high-caries-prevalent population in the Philippines.
methodsFrom the vaccination registry of community health centres in Caloocan City, Philippines, children aged 4-24 months underwent oral examinations according to modified International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) criteria, and their primary caregivers were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Baseline caries risk categories were evaluated using 3 available tools, without biological tests. Caries incidence was recorded during the follow-up visit after 2 years.
resultsBaseline oral examinations in 703 toddlers (mean age: 13.3 months, standard deviation (SD) 2.4) revealed a high caries prevalence of 29.2%. Of the 654 eligible children without cavitated caries at baseline, 323 (mean age: 35.6 months, SD 5.1) attended the 2-year follow-up visit, with a caries incidence (cavitated and non-cavitated) of 76.5%. Caries-risk Assessment Form (CrAF) demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity scores (93.1% and 3.9%), while Caries Management by Risk Assessment (CAMBRA) showed similar patterns (71.7% and 34.2%). Conversely, Cariogram exhibited low sensitivity but high specificity (23.5% and 80.3%).
conclusionAmong CrAF, CAMBRA or Cariogram, no assessment tool came close (sensitivity + specificity < 160) to effectively identify toddlers highly at risk of caries development. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Current CRA tools lack sufficient accuracy in predicting caries development in high-risk populations like Filipino children. Refinement or development of more valid tools is crucial for implementing effective caries prevention strategies at both individual and population levels.
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.