ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Questionnaires related to Evidence-Based Practice applied to dentists, faculty members or dental students: a scoping review.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous instruments have been suggested to analyze the essential Evidence-Based Dentistry (EBD) dimensions, but it is unclear whether they were comprehensive and validated appropriately.
aimTo investigate instruments that assess EBD-related dimensions.
methodsWe included primary studies involving dentists, faculty members, or dental students at any level of professional career that described validation or translation/transcultural adaptation processes of EBD instruments or reported the application of such instruments. Searches were conducted at PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, along with manual searches in EBD journals, Google Scholar and reference lists. Descriptive data were collected and standardized in tables, and summarized.
resultsFifty studies were included. The KACE (Knowledge, Attitudes, Access, and Confidence Evaluation) instrument demonstrated clarity, internal consistency, face validity, discriminant validity, and responsiveness, but neglected important dimensions such as EBD-related practices, patient benefits, barriers/facilitators, and willingness to learn and disseminate EBD practices. The modified Berlin questionnaire designed to measure perceived/actual knowledge, showed clarity, internal consistency, content validity, and discriminant validity, but lacked data on reproducibility, face validity, construct validity, and responsiveness. Other questionnaires, while broader, had significant limitations in reported reliability and validation.
conclusionsAlthough the KACE instrument and the modified Berlin questionnaire underwent relatively rigorous reliability and validation testing, they were considered insufficiently comprehensive. When analyzed together, other questionnaires were found to be relatively more comprehensive, but they exhibited more significant limitations regarding reported reliability and validation assessments. This suggests the need for a novel instrument that fulfills a more significant number of validation phases and EBD-related dimensions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40312556What 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.