ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Would you perform this procedure under general anesthesia? A scenario-based comparison of dentist and anesthesiologist approaches.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral anesthesia is increasingly utilized in dentistry; however, interdisciplinary variability in general anesthesia (GA) indication and risk perception remains insufficiently characterized. This study quantitatively compared dentists' and anesthesiologists' decisions regarding general anesthesia indication using standardized clinical scenarios.
methodsThis cross-sectional, scenario-based reader study involved 50 anesthesiologists and 50 dentists who each evaluated 20 standardized clinical scenarios, generating 2,000 decisions. For each scenario, participants selected the anesthesia method (general anesthesia vs. local anesthesia) and classified GA-related risk (low vs. high). A binary generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to identify factors associated with GA indication and GA risk perception. Inter-rater agreement was evaluated using Cohen's kappa and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK).
resultsAcross all evaluations, GA was selected in 44.1% of assessments. Anesthesiologists indicated GA more frequently than dentists (48% vs. 40.2%). Specialty was a significant determinant of GA indication, with a pronounced specialty × age interaction (p = 0.009). Pediatric scenarios-particularly those involving impaired cooperation and neurodevelopmental comorbidities-were more frequently associated with GA indication. Perceived GA risk did not differ significantly between specialties, although greater clinical experience reduced perceived GA risk among dentists (p < 0.001). Agreement was moderate for anesthesia method (κ = 0.476) and lower for GA risk (κ = 0.395).
conclusionsDentists and anesthesiologists differ significantly in GA indication despite similar risk perception frameworks. Findings highlight the need for standardized GA decision support tools, improved interdisciplinary communication, and evidence-based patient selection criteria in dental anesthesia.
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.