ArticleF1000Research2024
Understanding decision making for the use of atraumatic restorative approach based on non-clinical factors by Indian pedodontists - a conjoint analysis.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge and attitudes of dental students and interns on minimally invasive dentistry for pediatric dentistry at King Saud University.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Understanding decision making for the use of atraumatic restorative approach based on non-clinical factors by Indian pedodontists - a conjoint analysis.F1000Research · 2024Article
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
Background: Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach is considered as one of the minimally invasive interventions. The success of restoration depends on various clinical factors like material, patient and operator factor. Conjoint analysis is a technique for measuring individual's preference structures via systematical variations of products attributes in an experimental design. Aim: Assess Pedodontists' perception of non-clinical factors and investigate influence of child's age, level of cooperation and vulnerability status on their decisions to perform Atraumatic Restorative Approach (ART) approach using hypothetical patient scenario's and conjoint design. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional exploratory survey using a web-based questionnaire was performed among Pedodontists registered as life members under Indian Association of Pedodontic and Preventive Dentistry. Self-designed structured scenario-based questionnaire was prepared and validated. Three non-clinical factors Age of child, Cooperation level and Vulnerability status were considered. Using orthogonal design, SPSS software nine profiles were created randomly along with two holdouts. Final study proforma consisted of three sections with description of eleven clinical scenarios. It was administered to participants using Google forms. Using SPSS conjoint software relative utilities for each factor on decision for using ART was estimated. Results: Four hundred and thirty-two pedodontists had completed the survey (35.9%). Pedodontists considered vulnerability status of the child as the most important factor for their decision to use ART treatment. For the vulnerability status, the factor vulnerable had the greatest utility (-0.364) compared to non-vulnerable factor (0.364). For cooperation level, factor uncooperative had greater utility (-0.343), as compared to moderately cooperative (0.066) and uncooperative (0.277). For the age factor, the age of 4 years had the greatest utility (-0.175) compared with age 6 (-0.013) and age 12 (0.19). Conclusion: The most preferred scenario by pedodontists to consider ART as treatment of choice was child belonging to vulnerable section, being very young and uncooperative.
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.