ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Quality of referral letters in oral medicine: a two-year study in a Brazilian public dental specialty center.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
objectiveIn the Brazilian public health system, referral letters, issued by general dentists and physicians who perform initial clinical assessments, is the main source of information in arriving at a final diagnosis. However, the consistency and completeness of the referral letters remain poorly explored. Therefore, we assessed the quality of referral letters received by an oral medicine service at a dental specialty center over a 2-year period (2023-2024) and characterized the diagnostic profile of referred cases.
methodsThis census-based retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed 430 referral letters using 8 predefined criteria (0-8 points) on lesion characteristics, clinical history, and diagnostic hypothesis. The referral letters were classified as poor (0-1), regular (2-3), good (4-6), or excellent (7-8).
resultsAll referrals were from public services; 47.0% were issued in 2023 and 53.0% in 2024. Referrals to dentists accounted for 97.2% of the referrals. Most letters were rated as regular (60.5%) or good (23.0%), while 15.6% were classified as poor and only 0.9% as excellent. Frequently reported descriptors included lesion location (84.2%) and primary morphology (76.5%). Clinically relevant details such as symptomatology (22.8%), time of evolution (16.0%), lesion size (3.5%), and limits (2.3%) were mostly absent. Diagnoses included benign lesions (71.9%), potentially malignant disorders (10.7%), normality variations (6.3%), and malignant lesions (3.7%); 7.4% of the referrals had no diagnosis. Referral quality scores differed significantly across diagnostic categories (p=0.0076), with lower scores observed in cases without a final diagnosis.
conclusionsDespite the predominance of benign lesions, more than one in every seven referrals, which were often incompletely documented, involved potentially malignant disorders or malignant lesions. Strengthening referral documentation through targeted training and standardized electronic templates may improve screening accuracy, support the earlier detection of oral lesions, and reduce diagnostic delays within the Brazilian unified health system.
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.