ArticleBDJ open2026
OSRA
Article in BDJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdherence to clinical guidelines is central to patient safety in oral surgery, yet guideline uptake in routine dental practice remains inconsistent. Traditional guideline formats, such as static PDF documents, can be difficult to navigate at the point of care. Digital decision-support tools may improve accessibility, efficiency and clinician confidence, but evidence specific to oral surgery is limited.
aimTo evaluate whether the Oral Surgery Risk Assessment (OSRA) digital application improves usability, efficiency, perceived clinical impact and user satisfaction compared with conventional PDF-based guideline access.
methodsA randomised crossover study was conducted among 30 participants from a single academic centre, including undergraduate dental students, junior dental surgeons (DFTs/DCTs) and senior clinicians. Participants used both the OSRA digital application and conventional PDF guidelines across standardised oral surgery clinical scenarios. Outcomes were assessed using a structured questionnaire covering usability, reliability and trust, efficiency and workflow, satisfaction and future use and perceived clinical impact, measured on five-point Likert scales. Paired comparisons were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, with effect sizes reported. Qualitative free-text feedback was analysed thematically.
resultsAcross all domains, the OSRA application was consistently rated higher than PDF guidelines (all p < 0.05), with large to very large effect sizes (r = 0.55-0.75). The greatest differences were observed for efficiency and workflow (r = 0.75) and satisfaction and future use (r = 0.73). Participants reported reduced cognitive load, faster access to guidance and greater confidence in clinical decision making when using the app. Reliability analysis demonstrated excellent internal consistency for app-based ratings (Cronbach's α = 0.96). Qualitative feedback highlighted clarity, intuitive navigation and workflow integration as key strengths, alongside requests for enhanced transparency of evidence sources and expanded functionality.
conclusionsIn this pilot study, the OSRA digital application outperformed conventional PDF guidelines across all evaluated domains, suggesting that digital, point of care decision support tools can improve guideline accessibility, efficiency and user experience in oral surgery. With further development and validation, such tools have the potential to support safer, more consistent evidence-based clinical practice.
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.