ArticleBMC oral health2026
Consensus-based development of a short screening tool predicting oral health deterioration in older people for use by general practitioners.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
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
introductionOral health is critical for overall health and well-being, especially in older people. However, the frequency of dental visits tends to decrease as individuals age. In contrast, frail older people who are less likely to visit the dentist, increasingly rely on medical care, such as the general medical practitioner (GP). There is a lack of quick and efficient screening tools for GPs to assess the risk of oral health deterioration. This study aims to develop a short screening tool to provide GPs with a quick, easy-to-use tool to predict oral health deterioration in older people, enabling timely referral and intervention when needed.
methodsThe study consisted of three phases. In phase 1, the research team preliminary selected themes and items based on their predictive value, following a prior systematic review. In phase two the English self-reporting items were translated into Dutch, following cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. In phase 3 a panel of experts was selected and a Delphi method was conducted to develop the SHORT screening tool.
resultsThe preliminary selection resulted in thirteen self-reporting items. Translation and back-translation proceeded without difficulties. The Delphi panel included 10 healthcare professionals and consisted of three rounds, after which consensus was achieved for the inclusion of three self-reporting items in the tool (100% agreement; median score = 5; IQR = 0).
conclusionThe SHORT screening tool was developed, including a preliminary selection of items, translation, and the Delphi method, which was successful in achieving consensus. Further research is recommended to validate and test the psychometric properties of this newly developed screening tool.
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.