ArticleInternational journal of paediatric dentistry2025
Paediatricians' and Primary Care Physicians' Ability to Assess Caries Risk in Singaporean Children Aged 2 Years and Below.
Article in International journal of paediatric dentistry, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is desirable for doctors to conduct caries risk assessment (CRA) and evaluate the child's need for dental referral as medical visits in the first year of life surpass dental visits.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate physicians' proficiencies in performing CRA and risk-based dental referrals.
designThe study involved a self-administered questionnaire that elicited participants' demographics and perceptions regarding oral health-related activities as well as responses to questions pertaining to CRA and referral recommendations via four clinical vignettes (vignettes 1 and 3: low caries risk, vignettes 2 and 4: moderate/high caries risk) of children aged ≤ 2 years.
resultsParticipants performed better at CRA than for referral recommendation (p < 0.001). Including a clinical photograph (vignettes 3 and 4) did not improve the accuracy of CRA responses and instead significantly reduced the correct CRA responses for vignette 3 (before: 90.5%, after: 81.7%, p = 0.033). Though for vignette 3, there was an increase in participants making the recommendation to refer for dental evaluation (before: 34%, after: 86%) after being shown the clinical photograph.
conclusionDoctors were proficient at determining caries risk but less sure when deciding if a dental referral was required.
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.