ArticleBMC oral health2025
Measuring health‑ and oral health-related quality of life in secondary school pupils: a head‑to‑head psychometric comparison of CHU9D and CARIES-QC-U.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDental caries impacts children's health- and oral health-related quality of life. Preference-based measures (PBM) can quantify these impacts as utilities, facilitating economic evaluation of interventions. Two paediatric PBMs (one generic (CHU9D) and one condition-specific (CARIES-QC-U)) were used in the BRIGHT randomised control trial investigating the impact of a behaviour change intervention on schoolchildren's oral health. No comparison has been made of these two instruments previously. This study aimed to compare the psychometric properties of CHU9D and CARIES-QC-U using trial data.
methodsBaseline trial data were assessed. Mean utility scores, missing values and floor and ceiling effects were determined for each instrument. Cronbach's alpha was assessed to indicate internal consistency for each instrument. Correlations were explored between CARIES-QC-U and CHU9D, the dimensions within the two instruments, and between each instrument and DMFT. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were explored for each component of DMFT in relation to overall utility values from each instrument.
resultsBaseline data from 4542 schoolchildren aged 11-13 years were analysed. Over a third of participants had obvious caries experience. Mean utility scores for CARIES-QC-U and CHU9D were 0.76 and 0.91 respectively. Missing data was low for both instruments. Floor and ceiling effects were greater for CARIES-QC-U. Internal consistency was acceptable for both instruments. Correlation between utilities of CARIES-QC-U and CHU9D was weak at 0.35. Correlation between clinical caries experience and utilities from CARIES-QC-U was negative (r=-0.09) and stronger than with CHU9D (r=-0.02). Correlations between dimensions within the instruments were weaker than anticipated. Small, statistically significant effects were seen for both instruments and the decayed (D) component of DMFT, though this was stronger with CARIES-QC-U.
conclusionsThe burden of caries was reflected in participant utility scores. Whilst both PBMs performed well psychometrically, CARIES-QC-U demonstrated greater ability to capture impacts related to dental caries, indicating better suitability for caries research than CHU9D.
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.