Cited by 12Health Sciences Research and EducationDental Education, Practice, ResearchDental materials and restorations

Caries treatment in a dental practice‐based research network: movement toward stated evidence‐based treatment

Open access
Gilbert, Gregg H., Gordan, Valeria V., Funkhouser, Ellen M., Rindal, D. Brad, Fellows, Jeffrey L., Qvist, Vibeke, Anderson, Gerald, Worley, Donald +1 more·2013·Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology

Abstract

Objectives: Practice‐based research networks (PBRN s) provide a venue to foster evidence‐based care. We tested the hypothesis that a higher level of participation in a dental PBRN is associated with greater stated change toward evidence‐based practice. Methods: A total of 565 dental PBRN practitioner‐investigators completed a baseline questionnaire entitled ‘A ssessment of C aries D iagnosis and T reatment’; 405 of these also completed a follow‐up questionnaire about treatment of caries and existing restorations. Certain questions (six treatment scenarios) were repeated at follow‐up a mean (SD) of 36.0 (3.8) months later. A total of 224 were ‘full participants’ (enrolled in clinical studies and attended at least one network meeting); 181 were ‘partial participants’ (did not meet ‘full’ criteria). Results: From 10% to 62% of practitioners were ‘surgically invasive’ at baseline, depending on the clinical scenario. Stated treatment approach was significantly less invasive at follow‐up for four of six items. Change was greater among full participants and those with a more‐invasive approach at baseline, with an overall pattern of movement away from the extremes. Conclusions: These results are consistent with a preliminary conclusion that network participation fostered movement of scientific evidence into routine practice. PBRN s may foster movement of evidence into everyday practice as practitioners become engaged in the scientific process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cdoe.12008

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Impact on everyday practice can be the key research question for some studies, although the typical goal is to contribute to the evidence base in a manner similar to individual "R01" studies or clinical trials.

    “Impact on everyday practice can be the key research question for some studies [30-32], although the typical goal is to contribute to the evidence base in a manner similar to individual “R01” studies or clinical trials.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [15]Lindbloom EJ Ewigman BG Hickner JM Practice-based research networks: the laboratories of primary care research Med Care 2004 42 4 supplement III45 III49 15026664

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilbert, G. H., Gordan, V. V., Funkhouser, E. M., Rindal, D. B., Fellows, J. L., Qvist, V., Anderson, G., Worley, D., & The National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • HealthPartners (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (US)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • General Dentistry Private Practice Selma AL USA
Corresponding author
Gilbert, Gregg H.
Venue
Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-10-05
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
143-153
ISSN
  • 0301-5661 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0528
OpenAlex
W1999375701
Cited by
12
References
38
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U01DE016746, U01DE016747, U19DE022516)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Dental Education, Practice, Research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
Keywords
caries treatment, practice-based research networks, evidence-based practice, caries diagnosis, restoration, network participation, evidence dissemination
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Composite Resins, Dental Amalgam, Dental Caries, Dental Caries Susceptibility, Dental Cavity Preparation, Dental Enamel, Dental Materials, Dental Polishing, Dental Restoration, Permanent, Dentin, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Patient Care Planning, Pit and Fissure Sealants, Surveys and Questionnaires, Radiography, Dental Prosthesis Repair, Retreatment, Practice Patterns, Dentists', Air Abrasion, Dental, Evidence-Based Dentistry, Community-Based Participatory Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review