ArticleBMC oral health2025
Predictive validity and cost-effectiveness analysis of two caries risk assessment tools for preschool children.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of promoting preventive oral self-care in China: a population-based modelling study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Caries Activity and Its Associated Factors Among Primary Caregivers of Preschool Children.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
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
backgroundThis study compared the predictive validity and cost-effectiveness of Cariostat and a reduced Cariogram model for caries risk screening in preschoolers, to guide community-based prevention programs.
methodsA longitudinal study was conducted among 156 children (aged 3-4 years) recruited from two randomly selected kindergartens. Baseline assessments included oral examinations, caregiver questionnaires, and caries-risk stratification using Cariostat and the reduced Cariogram. After 12 months, follow-up examinations recorded caries incidence. Predictive performance was analyzed using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Cost-effectiveness ratios (CER) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated per correctly identified moderate-to-high-risk child.
resultsAmong 147 children completing follow-up, 50.3% developed new caries (mean dmft increment: 1.41 ± 0.21). The reduced Cariogram showed higher sensitivity (90.24% vs. 73.17%) but similar specificity (43.08% vs. 44.62%) and AUC (0.71 vs. 0.69) compared to Cariostat. The cost per correctly screened moderate-to-high-risk child was 6-fold lower for the reduced Cariogram (¥14.41 vs. ¥82.68), with a negative ICER of -278.3 favoring the reduced Cariogram.
conclusionThe reduced Cariogram outperformed Cariostat in sensitivity and cost-effectiveness for community caries screening, despite modest specificity. Its lower cost and simpler implementation support use in resource-limited settings.
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.