Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 395

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of different data analyses for detecting changes in attachment level

Haffajee, A. D., Socransky, S. S., Goodson, J. M.·1983·Journal of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of the present investigation was to evaluate methods to detect periods of destructive periodontal disease activity in individual sites using pairs of repeated attachment level measurements. Attachment level measurements were made at 6 sites on every tooth in 22 individuals with radiographie evidence of periodontal destruction, and were repeated within 7 days. A total of 3414 sites were monitored at 2‐month intervals for approximately 1 year. 3 analytical procedures were used to test for significant changes in attachment level. For regression analysis, a linear least squares fit function of time in days vs attachment level was computed for each site and the slope tested for difference from 0. Running medians of 3 were used to smooth attachment level measurements and changes > 2 mm in the smoothed curves were considered significant. By the tolerance method diferences between pairs of attachment level measurements were used to compare the mean change and the site specific variability of that change. The proportion of specific agreement (Ps) for breaking down sites was highest between the tolerance and running median methods (Ps = 0.63). Overall agreement (kappa), which included sites which showed “loss”, “gain”, and no change was 0.56. By regression analysis (P < 0.01). 175 sites were identified as having significant attachment loss and 79 sites were identified as improving. By running medians these figures were 90 and 50. and by tolerance 94 and 40, respectively. Each of the 3 methods had certain advantages. Regression analysis was particularly sensitive to gradual changes in slope whereas the running median method detecting abrupt changes in attachment level. The tolerance method was well suited to detecting changes over a short period of time. The tolerance and running median methods detected more breaking down sites on the molars and tower incisors and on interproximal surfaces: whereas regression analysis did not show these differences.

Overview

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/j.1600-051x.1983.tb01278.x

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 395

Metadata

Authors
Haffajee, A. D., Socransky, S. S., & Goodson, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1983-06
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
298-310
ISSN
  • 0303-6979 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-051X
OpenAlex
W2017652063
Cited by
395
References
17
FWCI
33.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of different data analyses for detecting changes in attachment level. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1983.tb01278.x
The paper
Haffajee, A. D., Socransky, S. S., & Goodson, J. M. (1983). Comparison of different data analyses for detecting changes in attachment level. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1983.tb01278.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.