ArticleGerodontology2026
Grading in Gerodontology: A Framework.
Article in Gerodontology, 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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUnderstanding and anticipating oral health deterioration in older adults requires more than describing their current oral and general health. Risk factors arising from oral, systemic and social domains strongly influence disease progression, care complexity and the ability to maintain function over time. We aimed to establish a framework for staging and grading oral health and disease in older adults, with grading systematically assessing and describing determinants of oral health deterioration. The developed framework is intended to support care planning, education, research and health-service policy.
methodsEight reviews examining oral, systemic and social risk factors for worsening oral health in older adults informed framework development. Additional existing reviews were also considered. A 2.5-day international workshop involving 31 experts from 13 countries was conducted, during which structured subgroup discussions and Delphi-style anonymous voting were used to refine and agree on the framework. Consensus was predefined at 75% agreement, and that was subsequently reached for all statements in a single voting round. The current paper presents the grading aspect of the developed framework; it should be used jointly with the paper on staging oral health in older adults.
resultsGrading encompasses three levels of risk factors: (1) oral-level factors such as dental caries risk, periodontitis risk and risks associated with the maintenance of existing dental prostheses; (2) systemic-level factors including xerostomia, multimorbidity, polypharmacy and nutritional aspects and (3) social-level factors such as social status and social support. Together, these domains reflect the likelihood of oral health deterioration, the intensity and frequency of required supportive care and the potential complexity of clinical management. Grading complements staging-which describes the current oral health status-by identifying the underlying risks shaping each older adult's oral health trajectory.
conclusionGrading provides a structured, evidence-based method for assessing risk and care complexity in older adults. When combined with staging, it should enable clinicians, caregivers and policymakers to classify cases comprehensively, tailor preventive and supportive interventions, and inform resource planning, surveillance, research and education. Future work should focus on validating, disseminating and implementing the framework across diverse care settings.
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.