Dataset Information

The efficacy of screening for common dental diseases by hygiene-therapists: a diagnostic test accuracy study.

ABSTRACT: Regularly attending adult patients are increasingly asymptomatic and not in need of treatment when attending for their routine dental examinations. As oral health improves further, using the general dental practitioner to undertake the "checkup" on regular "low-risk" patients represents a substantial and potentially unnecessary cost for state-funded systems. Given recent regulatory changes in the United Kingdom, it is now theoretically possible to delegate a range of tasks to hygiene-therapists. This has the potential to release the general dental practitioner's time and increase the capacity to care. The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic test accuracy of hygiene-therapists when screening for dental caries and periodontal disease in regularly attending asymptomatic adults who attend for their checkup. A visual screen by hygiene-therapists acted as the index test, and the general dental practitioner acted as the reference standard. Consenting asymptomatic adult patients, who were regularly attending patients at 10 practices across the Northwest of England, entered the study. Both sets of clinicians made an assessment of dental caries and periodontal disease. The primary outcomes measured were the sensitivity and specificity values for dental caries and periodontal disease. In total, 1899 patients were screened. The summary point for sensitivity of dental care professionals when screening for caries and periodontal disease was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.87) and 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92), respectively. The summary point for specificity of dental care professionals when screening for caries and periodontal disease was 0.87 (0.78 to 0.92) and 0.75 (0.66 to 0.82), respectively. The results suggest that hygiene-therapists could be used to screen for dental caries and periodontal disease. This has important ramifications for service design in public-funded health systems.

SUBMITTER: Macey R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4541095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe large and increasing number of new studies published each year is making literature identification in systematic reviews ever more time-consuming and costly. Technological assistance has been suggested as an alternative to the conventional, manual study identification to mitigate the cost, but previous literature has mainly evaluated methods in terms of recall (search sensitivity) and workload reduction. There is a need to also evaluate whether screening prioritization methods leads to the same results and conclusions as exhaustive manual screening. In this study, we examined the impact of one screening prioritization method based on active learning on sensitivity and specificity estimates in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.MethodsWe simulated the screening process in 48 Cochrane reviews of diagnostic test accuracy and re-run 400 meta-analyses based on a least 3 studies. We compared screening prioritization (with technological assistance) and screening in randomized order (standard practice without technology assistance). We examined if the screening could have been stopped before identifying all relevant studies while still producing reliable summary estimates. For all meta-analyses, we also examined the relationship between the number of relevant studies and the reliability of the final estimates.ResultsThe main meta-analysis in each systematic review could have been performed after screening an average of 30% of the candidate articles (range 0.07 to 100%). No systematic review would have required screening more than 2308 studies, whereas manual screening would have required screening up to 43,363 studies. Despite an average 70% recall, the estimation error would have been 1.3% on average, compared to an average 2% estimation error expected when replicating summary estimate calculations.ConclusionScreening prioritization coupled with stopping criteria in diagnostic test accuracy reviews can reliably detect when the screening process has identified a sufficient number of studies to perform the main meta-analysis with an accuracy within pre-specified tolerance limits. However, many of the systematic reviews did not identify a sufficient number of studies that the meta-analyses were accurate within a 2% limit even with exhaustive manual screening, i.e., using current practice.

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the accuracy of screening tests for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in Southeast Asian pregnant women.MethodsWe searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Google for relevant articles published in English up to November 2018 using search terms related to GDM, screening tests for GDM and diagnostic performance. The studies were independently screened and selected by both authors. The methodological quality of the included studies was independently assessed by quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model was created to estimate the HSROC curve. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated in a meta-analysis using bivariate random-effects model.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included in which the 100 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and 75 g OGTT were the two common reference standards for diagnosis of GDM. Most points of diagnostic performance in the HSROC 50 g GCT curve compared with the 100 g OGTT reference standard were clustered in the upper left-hand quadrant. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the 50 g GCT were 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64%-89%) and 74% (95% CI 59%-85%), respectively. For the 75 g OGTT reference standard, the non-fasting 2-hour plasma glucose showed quite similar sensitivity the 50 g GCT compared with the 100 g OGTT reference standard. The pooled sensitivities and specificities of the fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c were 81% (95% CI 76%-86%) and 70% (95% CI 67%-72%), and 80% (95% CI 66%-90%) and 69% (95% CI 58%-78%), respectively.ConclusionOur findings indicate that the 50 g GCT using the threshold of 140 mg/dL is a good screening test for identifying GDM at 24 to 28 weeks' gestational age for both high-risk and universal screening strategies in Southeast Asian countries. The non-fasting 2-hour PG, fasting plasma glucose or hemoglobin A1c are alternative choices for screening.

Dataset Information

The efficacy of screening for common dental diseases by hygiene-therapists: a diagnostic test accuracy study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets