ArticleCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2025
Assessing Total Fluoride Intake in Children: Reliability of Commonly Used Methods.
Article in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 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.
- Assessing Total Fluoride Intake in Children: Reliability of Commonly Used Methods.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesFluoride exposure in children is commonly estimated using questionnaires or urinary biomarkers. However, no study has yet compared these methods for classifying participants into five intake categories ranging from low to high. This study aimed to estimate the extent of agreement and classification consistency between questionnaire- and urinary-based methods for assessing total daily fluoride intake (TDFI) in children aged 4-7 years.
methodsA total of 104 healthy children across three countries (UK, Brazil, Chile) receiving one of three fluoridation modalities (non-fluoridated-water, fluoridated-water, or fluoridated-milk) provided a 24-h urine sample and completed validated dietary and oral hygiene questionnaires. TDFI was estimated from dietary sources and toothpaste ingestion, adjusted for body weight. Urinary fluoride concentration was measured and 24 h-UFE determined by multiplying urine volume by fluoride concentration. TDFI was predicted from 24 h-UFE using the WHO's recommended method. Method agreement was assessed using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate continuous fluoride intake estimates. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between categorical intake classifications, while descriptive statistics reported the percentage of children in each intake group.
resultsThe questionnaire method estimated a higher mean TDFI (0.072 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine-based method (0.058 mg/kgbw/day, p = 0.01). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement for lower mean TDFI values (< 0.10 mg/kgbw/day) but increasing variability at higher fluoride intake levels. The questionnaire classified a larger proportion of children as high exposure (≥ 0.1 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine method (19.2% vs. 11.5%), with the greatest discrepancy observed in the fluoridated milk group (46.2% vs. 7.7%). Despite these classifications, Cohen's kappa revealed minimal agreement between methods (κ = 0.034, p = 0.508), suggesting that classification concordance was likely due to chance.
conclusionThis first study comparing questionnaire and urinary methods for assessing TDFI in children found significant discrepancies and minimal agreement, especially in higher exposure groups, highlighting the risk of misclassification and the need for research into combined assessment approaches.
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.