ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Do patient preferences matter when clinical outcomes are the same?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onSinha A, Kumar S, Sargaiyan V, Kottapalli RH, Sharma D, Goyal A. Comparative effectiveness of modified manual and powered toothbrushing interventions in individuals with disabilities: a randomized controlled trial assessing gingival health. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2024; https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1171_24 . DATA SOURCES: This commentary draws on data from a randomized controlled trial by Sinha et al. (2024), which compared the clinical effectiveness of manual and powered toothbrushes among individuals with disabilities. Supplementary insights were integrated from behavioral, psychological, and health systems literature to contextualize the findings. STUDY SELECTION: The primary study was selected for its focus on a vulnerable population and its moderate GRADE rating, which indicates methodological robustness despite limited generalizability. Supporting studies were chosen for their relevance to patient-centered care frameworks and oral health behaviors. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Clinical outcomes were extracted from Sinha et al. (2024), while behavioral and patient experience themes were synthesized from a range of models including Self-Determination Theory, the Health Belief Model, and Shared Decision-Making frameworks. Preference-related data were qualitatively integrated to highlight divergence from clinical parity.
resultsThe referenced trial showed no significant difference in gingival health outcomes between manual and powered brushing. However, a notable preference emerged for powered toothbrushes among participants. This preference appears driven by perceived ease of use, sensory comfort, and enhanced autonomy. Literature indicates that honoring such preferences enhances adherence, satisfaction, and long-term oral health outcomes, especially in individuals with disabilities.
conclusionsClinical equivalence between interventions does not imply experiential equivalence. For individuals with disabilities, patient preferences are not secondary, they are central to sustainable, person-centered care. Future oral health promotion strategies should integrate preference-sensitive models to support autonomy, behavioral engagement, and equity in healthcare delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41339705What 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.