ArticleBDJ open2026
Benchmarking Australian Dental Weighted Activity Units against public and private dental fee schedules: a cross-sectional item-code comparator study.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo benchmark Dental Weighted Activity Units (DWAUs) against Australian dental remuneration schedules and derive suggested recalibration factors for endodontics, periodontics and prosthodontics. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional item-code comparator study linked Australian Dental Association item codes to DWAU values and fees from public and private schedules, standardised to 1 January 2025 Australian dollars. The primary outcome was grouped DWAU per dollar, calculated as the sum of DWAUs divided by the sum of fees and expressed as DWAU per $1000. Lower values indicated fewer DWAUs credited per dollar of remuneration. Merged general and merged specialist fee series were constructed, with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals and suggested stream-specific calibration factors estimated.
resultsOf 343 item codes, 264 had DWAU values greater than zero and 260 were included. Overall DWAU per $1000 was 1.589 for merged general comparators and 1.130 for merged specialist comparators. Under specialist comparators, endodontics had the lowest value at 0.945 DWAU per $1000, 16.40% below the benchmark. The suggested specialist calibration factor for endodontics was 1.196. DISCUSSION: The findings indicate that current DWAU values are not uniformly aligned with remuneration signals, particularly for specialist endodontics, and supports stream-specific review rather than a single uniform adjustment.
conclusionsCross-schedule benchmarking and specialist-adjusted DWAU rates may improve public dental activity measurement, commissioning and specialist service planning.
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.