Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40605181›Full record

ArticleOral diseases2025

How Oral Medicine Practice Is Reported: A Scoping Review of 114,971 Patients.

Camila Barcellos Calderipe, Laura Borges Kirschnick, Alini Cardoso Soares, Ana Carolina Uchoa Vasconcelos, Marcio Ajudarte Lopes, Nathaniel Simon Treister, Alan Roger Santos-Silva

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oral diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Camila Barcellos CalderipeOral Diagnosis Department, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0188-7435
Laura Borges KirschnickOral Diagnosis Department, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9411-3713
Alini Cardoso SoaresOral Diagnosis Department, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6445-0658
Ana Carolina Uchoa VasconcelosDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Dentistry and Nursing, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6560-9536
Marcio Ajudarte LopesOral Diagnosis Department, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6677-0065
Nathaniel Simon TreisterDivision of Oral Medicine and Dentistry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5596-7222
Alan Roger Santos-SilvaOral Diagnosis Department, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2040-6617

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis review aimed to: (i) identify the variables used by oral medicine services (OMS) to describe the scope of their clinical practices and (ii) identify gaps in the availability of these variables in the literature to guide future research on the characterisation of OM practices. To address the following question: What characteristics from studies on clinical practice have been used to describe the scope of practice in OM? MATERIAL AND

methodsThis scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Electronic searches were conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS and grey literature. The presence of the following variables was assessed: referral source, age, sex, medical profile, diagnosis, procedures and follow-up.

resultsA total of 12 studies met the eligibility criteria, comprising 15 OMS across 10 countries and including 114,971 patients. Some studies specifically aimed to characterise OMS practice, while others focused on specific aspects of these practices. Most studies examined variables such as referral source, age, sex and diagnosis.

conclusionsThere are gaps in the description of the OMS scope of practice in the literature, particularly regarding patient follow-up, characterisation of the range of procedures performed and documentation of patients' medical profiles.

Indexed as

Oral MedicineScope of PracticeHumansReferral and Consultationoral medicinescope of practicestomatology

Identifiers

PMID40605181
PMCPMC12989044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.