ArticleBMJ open2025
Development of a taxonomy mapping dental services integration: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe integration of dental services within the broader healthcare landscape is crucial for achieving integrated healthcare delivery. However, we lack a clear representation of the full spectrum of possible dental service integration, which is necessary for policymakers, healthcare system organisers, researchers, professionals and patients themselves to optimise organisations. Our present research aims to establish the foundation for a taxonomy of dental services that is fully integrated into the health domain, while minimising historical, cultural or epistemological biases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol outlines a scoping review that will adhere to the framework of the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. It has also been registered on the Open Science Framework. The research team, including a patient representative, advocate and transdisciplinary researcher, who has been involved from the inception, describes a two-phase dynamic screening process. An initial search will be conducted in the PubMed database using a Boolean search strategy based on theoretical frameworks that view health through a biopsychosocial continuum. New taxa will be progressively identified, and in the second phase, we will develop a new search strategy based on the results obtained and will explore deeper into certain categories or subcategories of taxa. Iterative strategies may also involve using new databases and even grey literature. This process will be repeated until taxon saturation is achieved and will be updated prior to submission to capture the latest literature, ultimately resulting in a comprehensive taxonomy, at the scale of individual healthcare pathways (micro- and meso-levels of organisation). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will analyse published secondary data and does not require ethical review. The findings will be disseminated through publication in scientific journals, presentation at conferences and sharing through professional networks.
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.