ArticleJournal of clinical periodontology2026
Validation of the Diabetes Risk Assessment in Dentistry Score in NHANES 2009-2014.
Article in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metabolic Risk Signals in Periodontal Clinics: Cross-Sectional Associations of PISA with hs-CRP and HOMA-IR.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Association between subclinical coronary artery atherosclerosis and oral health-a study on a Swedish population.BDJ open · 2026Article
- Validation of the Diabetes Risk Assessment in Dentistry Score in NHANES 2009-2014.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2026Article
- Progress in sepsis prediction models: from traditional scoring systems to multimodal intelligence and clinical translation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
aimTo validate the Diabetes Risk Assessment in Dentistry Score (DDS) in a US population-based sample and compare its performance with the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk calculator and the Leicester Risk Assessment (LRA).
methodsData were obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) covering the 2009-2014 cycles. The study focused on participants aged 40 years and older who included complete data for DDS and ADA risk score assessment. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), while decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the model.
resultsOf the 6259 participants included, the average age was 57.3 years (±12.0 years, range: 40-80 years) and the sample was evenly distributed by sex (50.8% female). DDS showed limited discriminative ability with an AUC of 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.65), and DCA analysis showed higher net benefit than the 'Treat None' strategy across most probability thresholds, indicating added clinical value in decision making. The ADA risk calculator and LRA showed an AUC of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.59-0.63) and 0.631 (95% CI: 0.615-0.647), which were below the DDS performance.
conclusionThe DDS demonstrated acceptable performance for American adults aged 40 years or older, and showed marginally superior performance compared with the ADA diabetes risk calculator and LRA, highlighting its potential utility in dental practice settings as a complementary screening tool.
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.