ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
A scoping review of patient safety checklists in dentistry.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation and Evaluation of the OWLL Intervention to Improve the Quality and Safety of Pediatric Dental Sedation: A Mixed-Methods Approach.Journal of patient safety · 2026Article
- Safer and faster: evaluation of a dental implant checklist.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Mapping Error Propagation in Intraoral Scanning Using Reason's Swiss-Cheese Model: An In Vitro Study of Precision Under Repeatability Conditions.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Generators of Inequality and Inequity Affecting Dental Patient Safety: A Grounded Theory Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Patient safety attitude scale in dentistry: development and validation study in Türkiye.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of Patient Safety Checklists in Pediatrics.Academic pediatricsArticle
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
Abstract
objectivesNot much is known about safety checklists use in dentistry. We aim to examine, assess, and provide a comprehensive understanding of the current knowledge concerning the use of checklists to improve patient safety in dentistry.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search using Medline and Embase for studies that use or describe the development of dental patient safety checklists. All study designs were included for citations published through December 2023.
resultsFollowing abstract and full-text screening, 27 studies remained for data extraction and analysis. Oral surgery emerged as the main dental specialty where the utilization and evaluation of checklists were primarily concentrated (n = 15). The majority of the included studies described either checklist development, their implementation, or both (n = 18). Only 6 studies assessed the effectiveness of checklists in improving patient safety outcomes. Of the effectiveness studies, five found a decrease in incidents and dental adverse events, along with an improvement in patient care and safety, associated with the use of checklists.
conclusionsThis scoping review highlights the limited current knowledge regarding checklist use and effectiveness in reducing adverse events across dental practices; it demonstrates the need on how to best guide the profession towards implementing this important evidence-based patient safety tool. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Checklists are effective tools to improve patient safety and have become integral to medical practice. Dentistry can also benefit from these tools to improve patient safety.
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.