ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Clinical validation of a web-based decision support system for periodontal diagnosis, risk assessment, and recall planning: A multicenter study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
Purpose: Application of the 2017 American Academy of Periodontology/European Federation of Periodontology (AAP/EFP) classification requires integration of multiple clinical, radiographic, and risk-related parameters, which may be challenging and time-consuming in routine clinical practice. Digital decision-support systems may assist clinicians by improving diagnostic consistency and workflow efficiency. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to evaluate the diagnostic agreement, accuracy, and clinical efficiency of a web-based automated decision-support system for periodontal diagnosis, risk assessment, and recall planning in comparison with gold-standard clinician assessment. Methods: This two-phase study included Rule-Based Algorithm Development and Verification using 2000 anonymized periodontal records and prospective clinical validation in 328 consecutive patients. Automated outputs for periodontal staging, grading, periodontal risk assessment, and supportive periodontal therapy recall recommendations were compared with independent clinician diagnosis. Diagnostic agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics, while sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and diagnostic time were also analyzed. Results: The automated system demonstrated moderate agreement with clinician diagnosis for periodontal staging and grading, with higher levels of agreement observed for periodontal risk categorization and recall interval recommendations. Sensitivity and negative predictive value for identification of advanced periodontitis (Stage III-IV) were high, while most diagnostic discrepancies occurred between adjacent diagnostic categories. Use of the system resulted in a significant reduction in diagnostic time compared with conventional clinical assessment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The web-based decision-support system showed clinically acceptable agreement with clinician diagnosis and improved diagnostic efficiency. It may be used as an adjunct to support standardized periodontal diagnosis, risk assessment, and recall planning, while comprehensive clinical examination and professional judgment remain essential.
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.