ArticleBMC oral health2026
Validation and psychometric evaluation of the Albanian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile-5 (OHIP-5-ALB) in Kosovo.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study validated the Albanian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile-5 (OHIP-5-Alb), a brief, patient-reported outcome measure assessing oral health-related quality of life. Although the OHIP-49 is comprehensive, its length limits practical use, leading to shorter versions like the OHIP-14 and finally OHIP-5, which have been recommended for wide usage. Material and MethodsThe OHIP-5-Alb was translated and culturally adapted following rigorous international guidelines and tested across diverse samples: general population (n = 441) aged 18–90, having different oral status and educational backgrounds. Dental students (n = 30) were included for the test–retest reliability, and prosthodontic patients who needed new complete dentures (n = 38) for the responsiveness. ResultsShowed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.725) comparable to other international validations. Test–retest reliability over two weeks showed moderate to excellent intraclass correlation coefficients (0.58–0.98) and similar Weighted Kappa correlation coefficients (0.54–0.92), indicating the questionnaire’s stability over time. Convergent validity was confirmed through strong correlations between self-perceived oral health and the OHIP-5 scores. Discriminant validity was confirmed by significant score differences among different dental status groups. Those with natural teeth reported better OHRQoL than fixed-, and finally removable denture wearers, who faced functional and sensory challenges in chewing and food-flavour perception. Educational level also correlated with denture status; more removable dentures existed in lower educated population, as predicted, while high educated individuals had higher percentage of own teeth or fixed partial dentures, reflecting known socio-dental patterns. Complete denture wearers in general population had significantly lower OHIP5 scores than those who came searching for new complete denture treatment. Responsiveness revealed significant improvements in most OHIP-5 items following new complete denture treatment, except for “Less flavour in food,” consistent with previous findings about sensory limitations and palatal coverage. ConclusionLimitations include potential sampling bias, underrepresentation of low-income subjects, rural, elderly, and institutionalized individuals, reliance on self-reports without clinical verification in general population, and inclusion of only complete denture treatment for responsiveness. Despite these, OHIP-5-Alb proved to be a reliable, valid, and efficient tool for clinical and epidemiological use in Albanian-speaking populations in the Republic of Kosovo, maintaining good psychometric properties while reducing respondent burden.
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.