ArticleBMC oral health2024
Assessment of the quality of oral squamous cell carcinoma clinical records in oral surgery with Surgical Tool for Auditing Records (STAR) scoring.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Unveiling documentation deficiencies: a clinical audit of histopathology request forms at a tertiary care hospital.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- A Quality Improvement Intervention to Enhance Documentation on Histopathology Request Forms.Cureus · 2025Article
- The Diagnostic Considerations and Clinical Management of Lower Lip Swellings in Adolescents: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Article
- Internal Audit of an Oral Pathology Laboratory: Perspectives on Finances and Operational Management.Cureus · 2024Article
- Evaluation of histological artefacts in oral pathology laboratory: A cross-sectional study.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
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
backgroundThe Surgical Tool for Auditing Records scoring system [STAR] focuses on surgical record auditing with promising outcomes. It offers a structured approach to evaluating the quality of surgical notes. AIMS AND
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the STAR in evaluating oral surgical records and identifying areas for improvement in documentation practices. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe data was obtained from the Dental Information Archival Software (DIAS) of our institution. The sample size was determined using G*Power 3.1.9.4 software. Fifty consecutive oral surgery clinical records of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients were evaluated using STAR. Each record was reviewed for adherence to documentation standards including Initial Assessment (10 points), Follow-up Entries (8 points), Consent Documentation (7 points), Anesthesia Report (7 points), Surgical Log (9 points), and Discharge Synopsis (9 points). compiling a total STAR score (50 points). The data was tabulated in Google Sheets. The descriptive statistics with inter-observer agreement and the mean score were recorded.
resultsWe observed that each of the 50 records received a score of 49/50 points on the STAR. Deductions were necessary in the Operative record section due to the lack of information regarding the sutures used.
conclusionTo summarize, this study emphasizes the effectiveness of the STAR scoring system in evaluating the quality of oral surgical records. Identifying deficiencies, particularly in documenting operative details, can improve the completeness and accuracy of patient records. It can ultimately enhance patient care and facilitate better communication among healthcare professionals.
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.