正畸患者报告结果在比较观察性研究中的应用:一项方法学研究

IF 4.1 4区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101956
Xinliang Huang , Zhendong Tao , Peter Ngan , Danchen Qin , Hong He , Fang Hua
{"title":"正畸患者报告结果在比较观察性研究中的应用:一项方法学研究","authors":"Xinliang Huang ,&nbsp;Zhendong Tao ,&nbsp;Peter Ngan ,&nbsp;Danchen Qin ,&nbsp;Hong He ,&nbsp;Fang Hua","doi":"10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To identify and summarize the presence and characteristics of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) within comparative observational studies published in 5 leading orthodontic journals.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Electronic searching was performed to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) related comparative observational studies published in selected journals between 2015 and 2021. Two authors extracted the characteristics of each included study independently and in duplicate and summarized the dPROs and dPROMs used in these studies. All dPROs were classified into 2 general types (oral health-related quality of life<span> [OHRQoL] and others), while dPROMs were divided into 3 categories (single-item questionnaires, generic multiple-item questionnaires, and specific multiple-item questionnaires). In addition, dPROMs were examined, if they evaluated the 4 dimensions of OHRQoL (oral function, orofacial pain, orofacial appearance, and psychosocial impact).</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>A total of 683 observational studies were eligible and included of which 117 (17.1%) used dPROs and dPROMs. Seven different dPROs (OHRQoL, patients’ satisfaction with treatment, preferences, concerns, compliance, duration, and unwanted events) and 33 different dPROMs (including 8 single-item questionnaires, 11 generic multiple-item questionnaires, and 14 specific multiple-item questionnaires) were identified in these studies. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO (92/117, 78.6%), while Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14) was the most frequently used dPROM (20/92, 21.7%). In terms of study design, cross-sectional studies had the highest proportion of dPRO usage (62/148, 41.9%), followed by </span>cohort studies (63/505, 12.5%) and case-control studies (1/30, 3.3%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Only one-sixth of comparative observational studies published in leading orthodontic journals could reflect patients’ perspectives. Observational studies in orthodontics need to provide more patient-important information through the use of dPROs and dPROMs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48736,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE USE OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG COMPARATIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES IN ORTHODONTICS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY\",\"authors\":\"Xinliang Huang ,&nbsp;Zhendong Tao ,&nbsp;Peter Ngan ,&nbsp;Danchen Qin ,&nbsp;Hong He ,&nbsp;Fang Hua\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101956\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To identify and summarize the presence and characteristics of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) within comparative observational studies published in 5 leading orthodontic journals.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Electronic searching was performed to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) related comparative observational studies published in selected journals between 2015 and 2021. Two authors extracted the characteristics of each included study independently and in duplicate and summarized the dPROs and dPROMs used in these studies. All dPROs were classified into 2 general types (oral health-related quality of life<span> [OHRQoL] and others), while dPROMs were divided into 3 categories (single-item questionnaires, generic multiple-item questionnaires, and specific multiple-item questionnaires). In addition, dPROMs were examined, if they evaluated the 4 dimensions of OHRQoL (oral function, orofacial pain, orofacial appearance, and psychosocial impact).</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>A total of 683 observational studies were eligible and included of which 117 (17.1%) used dPROs and dPROMs. Seven different dPROs (OHRQoL, patients’ satisfaction with treatment, preferences, concerns, compliance, duration, and unwanted events) and 33 different dPROMs (including 8 single-item questionnaires, 11 generic multiple-item questionnaires, and 14 specific multiple-item questionnaires) were identified in these studies. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO (92/117, 78.6%), while Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14) was the most frequently used dPROM (20/92, 21.7%). In terms of study design, cross-sectional studies had the highest proportion of dPRO usage (62/148, 41.9%), followed by </span>cohort studies (63/505, 12.5%) and case-control studies (1/30, 3.3%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Only one-sixth of comparative observational studies published in leading orthodontic journals could reflect patients’ perspectives. Observational studies in orthodontics need to provide more patient-important information through the use of dPROs and dPROMs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532338223001665\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532338223001665","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:识别和总结发表在5种主要正畸期刊上的比较观察性研究中患者报告结果(dPROs)和患者报告结果测量(dPROMs)的存在和特征。方法:电子检索2015年至2021年间发表在选定期刊上的干预(治疗性或预防性)相关比较观察性研究。两位作者分别独立和重复提取了每项纳入研究的特征,并总结了这些研究中使用的dPROs和dprom。所有dpro分为2大类(口腔健康相关生活质量[OHRQoL]及其他),dprom分为3大类(单题问卷、通用多题问卷和特定多题问卷)。此外,检查dPROMs是否评估了OHRQoL的4个维度(口腔功能、口腔面部疼痛、口腔面部外观和心理社会影响)。结果:共纳入683项观察性研究,其中117项(17.1%)使用dPROs和dPROMs。在这些研究中确定了7种不同的dpro (OHRQoL,患者对治疗的满意度,偏好,关注,依从性,持续时间和不想要的事件)和33种不同的dprom(包括8份单题问卷,11份通用多题问卷和14份特定多题问卷)。OHRQoL是最常用的dPROM(92/117, 78.6%),而OHIP-14是最常用的dPROM(20/92, 21.7%)。在研究设计方面,横断面研究使用dPRO的比例最高(62/148,41.9%),其次是队列研究(63/505,12.5%)和病例对照研究(1/30,3.3%)。结论:在主要的正畸期刊上发表的比较观察性研究中,只有六分之一能反映患者的观点。正畸的观察性研究需要通过使用dPROs和dprom来提供更多对患者重要的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
THE USE OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG COMPARATIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES IN ORTHODONTICS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

Objective

To identify and summarize the presence and characteristics of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) within comparative observational studies published in 5 leading orthodontic journals.

Methods

Electronic searching was performed to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) related comparative observational studies published in selected journals between 2015 and 2021. Two authors extracted the characteristics of each included study independently and in duplicate and summarized the dPROs and dPROMs used in these studies. All dPROs were classified into 2 general types (oral health-related quality of life [OHRQoL] and others), while dPROMs were divided into 3 categories (single-item questionnaires, generic multiple-item questionnaires, and specific multiple-item questionnaires). In addition, dPROMs were examined, if they evaluated the 4 dimensions of OHRQoL (oral function, orofacial pain, orofacial appearance, and psychosocial impact).

Results

A total of 683 observational studies were eligible and included of which 117 (17.1%) used dPROs and dPROMs. Seven different dPROs (OHRQoL, patients’ satisfaction with treatment, preferences, concerns, compliance, duration, and unwanted events) and 33 different dPROMs (including 8 single-item questionnaires, 11 generic multiple-item questionnaires, and 14 specific multiple-item questionnaires) were identified in these studies. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO (92/117, 78.6%), while Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14) was the most frequently used dPROM (20/92, 21.7%). In terms of study design, cross-sectional studies had the highest proportion of dPRO usage (62/148, 41.9%), followed by cohort studies (63/505, 12.5%) and case-control studies (1/30, 3.3%).

Conclusions

Only one-sixth of comparative observational studies published in leading orthodontic journals could reflect patients’ perspectives. Observational studies in orthodontics need to provide more patient-important information through the use of dPROs and dPROMs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
105
审稿时长
28 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice presents timely original articles, as well as reviews of articles on the results and outcomes of clinical procedures and treatment. The Journal advocates the use or rejection of a procedure based on solid, clinical evidence found in literature. The Journal''s dynamic operating principles are explicitness in process and objectives, publication of the highest-quality reviews and original articles, and an emphasis on objectivity.
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Editorial Board Statement of Purpose/Levels of Evidence Information for Readers Information for Authors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1