ArticleBioMed research international2025
A Digital Clinical Records Versus Paper Records in Dental Practice: A Comparative Study.
Article in BioMed research international, 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.
- A Digital Clinical Records Versus Paper Records in Dental Practice: A Comparative Study.BioMed research international · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Efficient analysis of patient histories is essential for dental treatment planning. Electronic health records (EHRs) facilitate the immediate identification of risk factors, such as medication allergies and sensitivities to dental materials, thereby reducing the risk of medical errors. Objective: This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of an EHR interface with traditional paper medical records (PMRs) in evaluating the medical histories of dental patients. Methods: Two hundred patient records were randomly assigned to either the PMR or EHR group. Twenty dental students reviewed the records and reported the planned dental procedure for each patient. Recording and reporting times, as well as the number of oversights, were measured for both groups. Results: Students using EHRs identified critical systemic conditions more rapidly and with greater accuracy, with no oversights detected. In contrast, students using PMRs required more time and were more likely to overlook important health information. The mean number of oversights in the PMR group was significantly higher (9.3 ± 0.46, Conclusion: The use of EHRs in dental practice significantly improves the identification of critical systemic conditions, enhances patient safety, and increases clinical efficiency. Despite the benefits, the high costs of software acquisition, staff training, and technical support may pose challenges to widespread adoption.
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.