ArticleMedicine2026
Consistency in staging, grading, and extent of periodontitis diagnosis: A cross-sectional online-based assessment among Indonesian periodontics specialist students.
Article in Medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periodontitis remains a significant global health burden, and its accurate diagnosis is critical for effective management. The 2018 classification system for periodontitis introduces staging, grading, and extent parameters to enhance diagnostic consistency, but its application among trainees remains underexplored. This study evaluates the consistency of staging, grading, and extent diagnosis of periodontitis among Indonesian periodontics specialist students using the 2018 classification system, highlighting challenges and variability in interpretation. A total of 41 students across different training levels participated in the study, classifying 5 clinical cases based on comprehensive diagnostic materials, including radiographs, periodontal charts, and medical histories. Diagnostic concordance with gold-standard diagnoses was assessed and using Fleiss Kappa for inter-reliability analysis. Agreement rates were 56.10% for staging (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.170, 95% CI: 0.145-0.196), 76.10% for grading (Kappa = 0.210, 95% CI: 0.185-0.235), and 74.15%. for extent (Kappa = 0.168, 95% CI: 0.144-0.192). Overestimation of severity occurred in 35.12% of staging decisions, while 20.93% of cases were underestimated in grading. Diagnostic variability was greatest in borderline cases. Indonesian periodontics specialist students demonstrated fair consistency in grading but poor agreement in staging and extent compared with expert consensus. These findings highlight the need for enhanced calibration exercises and curriculum reform to improve diagnostic reliability. Multi-institutional studies with larger cohorts are recommended to further validate these findings.
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.