SynthesisJournal of clinical periodontology2026
Methodological Quality of Prognostic Models for Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical periodontology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo critically appraise the methodological quality and historical evolution of prognostic models for periodontitis. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was conducted in three databases. Eligible studies were classified as conceptual tools, category-based tools and data-driven models. Category-based and data-driven models were evaluated with PROBAST. Risk of bias (ROB) was compared across four domains: Participants, Predictors, Outcome and Analysis.
resultsTwenty-seven studies were included. Prognostic methods evolved from qualitative risk categories and expert-based classifications towards quantitative, individualised probability estimates generated through multivariable statistical and machine-learning models, alongside progressive improvements in outcome definition, prediction time and risk expression formats. Conceptual tools were not evaluable under PROBAST due to the absence of empirical data. Category-based tools showed limitations in predictor handling and validation rather than bias per se. Data-driven models demonstrated progressive refinement: earlier studies lacked consistent validation, whereas recent models more frequently report internal validation, calibration metrics and external validation. However, all studies except one were classified as high ROB. Domain-level assessment showed strengths in the Participants domain but persistent limitations in the Analysis domain. Methodological improvements after TRIPOD were modest.
conclusionPrognostic models reflect distinct methodological profiles across design type. Conceptual and category-based frameworks remain clinically relevant historically, while data-driven models represent the contemporary standard but retain important methodological gaps.
trial registrationPROSPERO number: CRD42024525505.
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.