ArticleInternational dental journal2025
Development and Validation of Chinese Version of Dental Pain Screening Questionnaire.
Article in International dental journal, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDental pain is one of the most prevalent oral complaints. This study aimed to establish a Chinese version of Dental Pain Screening Questionnaire (DePaQ) to help classify patients into three groups of dental pain diseases (group 1, reversible pulpitis and dentine hypersensitivity; group 2, acute periapical periodontitis and irreversible pulpitis; and group 3, pericoronitis).
methodsThe DePaQ was translated from English to Chinese. The clinical subjects (CS, n = 290) and nonclinical subjects (NS, n = 100) with dental pain were collected. The CS were randomly divided into two subsamples: CS1 (n = 203) and CS2 (n = 87). The Fisher discriminant functions of the final 13-item Chinese version of the DePaQ were obtained from the CS1 group, and discriminant validity was further verified in the CS2 and NS groups.
resultsThe discriminant functions of the final 13-item DePaQ obtained from the CS1 group were capable of correctly distinguishing 93.1% and 89.0% cases of the CS2 and NS groups, respectively. In the CS2 group, the sensitivity for groups 1, 2, and 3 was 88.0%, 80.0%, and 83.0%, respectively, and the specificity was 95.0%, 95.0%, and 86.0%, respectively. In the NS group, the sensitivity for groups 1, 2, and 3 was 82.0%, 80.0%, and 86.0%, respectively, and the specificity was 91.0%, 97.0%, and 90.0%, respectively.
conclusionsThe Chinese version of DePaQ could help classify the three groups of dental pain diseases and guide medical treatment.
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.