ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Development and validation of a checklist for evaluating root canal treatment performance in Taiwan.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Over the past decade, numerous efforts have been made to develop guidelines for endodontic education; however, there has been no corresponding reform of the assessment scale. This study aimed to adopt an integrative approach to develop a checklist that summarizes the guidelines into key points for evaluating root canal treatment performance. Materials and methods: We followed the modified Delphi method and employed a five-step process to develop the checklist. Eight experts were recruited to develop the checklist, each with at least 7 years of clinical dentistry experiences, including a minimum 5 years in endodontics, as well as at least 3 years of teaching experience. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by three experts who applied the final item-weighted checklist to evaluate 66 extracted natural teeth operated by students who were about to enter pre-clinical training. Both experts and students were asked to provide feedback regarding the content validity of the checklist. Results: The careful development process with expert opinions supported the content validity. The final checklist includes 15 key items designed to measure comprehensive root canal treatment skills. The inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.437 to 0.865, indicating acceptable agreement among raters. Both teachers and students confirmed that the items were clear, comprehensible, and relevant, thereby supporting the face validity of the checklist. Conclusion: This study developed the first qualitative checklist in Taiwan for assessing root canal treatment techniques using a structured approach and the modified Delphi method. The checklist offers teachers a standardized assessment tool and enhances learning efficiency for students.
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.