SynthesisJournal of health psychology2026
Estimating the reliability of the modified dental anxiety scale: A systematic review and reliability generalization meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of health psychology, 2026. 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.
- Dental Anxiety Among Undergraduate Dental Students: A Comparative Analysis of MK-DAS and MDAS.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reliability generalization meta-analysis of the Modified Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS) synthesized a total of 128 α coefficients from 118 studies encompassing 95,588 participants. This synthesis was performed using three-level random-effects models with CR2 inference and Bonett transformation. The pooled internal consistency α = 0.882 (95% CI (0.873, 0.889)) and 95% PI (0.759, 0.942). The language moderator showed a strong effect that persisted after continent adjustment. Furthermore, while mean age and sample size were found to be reliably associated with α, other moderators were found to be invalid. PET/PEESE and Egger tests indicated minimal small-study effects, and reliability induction was prevalent (76.1%). Overall, MDAS scores show high reliability; however, they are also sensitive to contextual effects. It is important for studies in this field to report sample-specific alpha values along with CIs using omega/ordinal alpha. Practical benefits of using MDAS are presented for dental health professionals and researchers.
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.