ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2026
Administrative Claims Databases in Dentistry: Current Applications, Methodological Trends, and Evidence Gaps: A Global Scoping Review of Dataset Characteristics.
Review in International journal of dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Administrative claims databases are increasingly used in dental research. However, inconsistencies in data coverage and the lack of a global overview remain as challenges. This review aimed to summarize worldwide studies using dental administrative claims databases, focusing on research questions, methodologies, and findings to identify key trends and knowledge gaps. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a scoping review of studies using dental administrative claims data published between January 2010 and December 2025. We structured the review question using the Population-Concept-Context framework. The original search through April 2022, as registered in PROSPERO, was updated in April 2026 using the same search strategy and eligibility criteria. We searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ichushi-Web, CiNii, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers independently screened the records, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Cohort and case-control studies were critically appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to characterize the methodological quality of the mapped literature. Results: Following screening, 472 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most studies originated from the United States and Taiwan, indicating marked geographical concentration; the updated search added Switzerland and New Zealand. Research topics included treatment effectiveness, the epidemiology of rare conditions, healthcare utilization, and policy evaluation. Common limitations were insufficient clinical detail, variable data quality, and limited generalizability. Conclusions: This review highlights the expanding use of administrative claims databases in dental research and their inherent limitations. Future research should prioritize validating claims-based diagnosis and procedure codes and linking claims data with clinical records.
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.