IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE METHODS TO ASSESS DENTAL ANXIETY? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

IF 4.1 4区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.1016/j.jebdp.2025.102092

CAMILA SILVA DE AMORIM MsC , LARISSA SOARES LIMA DA SILVA MsC , GUIDO ARTEMIO MARAÑÓN-VÁSQUEZ PhD , MARCELA BARAÚNA MAGNO PhD , ANDRÉA VAZ BRAGA PINTOR PhD , PEDRO PAULO PIRES PhD , LUCIANNE COPLE MAIA PhD , MATHEUS MELO PITHON PhD

{"title":"IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE METHODS TO ASSESS DENTAL ANXIETY? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS","authors":"CAMILA SILVA DE AMORIM MsC , LARISSA SOARES LIMA DA SILVA MsC , GUIDO ARTEMIO MARAÑÓN-VÁSQUEZ PhD , MARCELA BARAÚNA MAGNO PhD , ANDRÉA VAZ BRAGA PINTOR PhD , PEDRO PAULO PIRES PhD , LUCIANNE COPLE MAIA PhD , MATHEUS MELO PITHON PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jebdp.2025.102092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To assess the evidence about the correlation between objective and subjective methods for evaluating dental anxiety.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Eligibility criteria were defined as follows: Patients (P): individuals in the dental care context; Index test (I): subjective methods; Reference test (R): objective methods; Outcome (O): correlation between methods to dental anxiety evaluation. Searches were conducted in 7 databases and grey literature up to November 2023, without language or date restrictions. The QUADAS-2 tool was employed to evaluate Risk of bias. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled correlation coefficients between methods on the basis of the objective method analyzed. The GRADE approach was utilized to assess evidence certainty.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 29 studies, with 1891 participants aged 3 to 82 years, were included, with 22 studies participating in the meta-analysis. The Risk of bias was mostly “unclear” due to inadequate methodology detail. Weak correlations were observed between subjective methods and heart rate (r 0.15 [0.08, 0.21], <em>P</em> < .001, I<sup>2</sup> = 56%) and alpha-amylase (r 0.25 [0.11, 0.38], <em>P</em> < .001, I<sup>2</sup> = 43%. Subjective methods showed a moderate correlation with cortisol analysis (r 0.40 [0.33, 0.47] <em>P</em> < .001, I<sup>2</sup> = 72%). No other objective method displayed a significant correlation with subjective methods. The certainty of evidence was very low.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The findings can suggest a correlation between the following subjective and objective methods: ACDAS, DAS, MCDAS, MDAS and Cortisol; CFSS-DS, DAS, MCDAS, MDAS and Alpha-amylase; and DAS, DAS-R, MDAS, S-DAI, Venham Picture Anxiety, Venham Picture Test and Heart rate. Nonetheless, these results lack conclusiveness due to their very low certainty of evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>PROSPERO database registration number CRD42022298589.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48736,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice","volume":"25 2","pages":"Article 102092"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","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/S1532338225000077","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

Abstract

Objective

To assess the evidence about the correlation between objective and subjective methods for evaluating dental anxiety.

Methods

Eligibility criteria were defined as follows: Patients (P): individuals in the dental care context; Index test (I): subjective methods; Reference test (R): objective methods; Outcome (O): correlation between methods to dental anxiety evaluation. Searches were conducted in 7 databases and grey literature up to November 2023, without language or date restrictions. The QUADAS-2 tool was employed to evaluate Risk of bias. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled correlation coefficients between methods on the basis of the objective method analyzed. The GRADE approach was utilized to assess evidence certainty.

Results

A total of 29 studies, with 1891 participants aged 3 to 82 years, were included, with 22 studies participating in the meta-analysis. The Risk of bias was mostly “unclear” due to inadequate methodology detail. Weak correlations were observed between subjective methods and heart rate (r 0.15 [0.08, 0.21], P < .001, I² = 56%) and alpha-amylase (r 0.25 [0.11, 0.38], P < .001, I² = 43%. Subjective methods showed a moderate correlation with cortisol analysis (r 0.40 [0.33, 0.47] P < .001, I² = 72%). No other objective method displayed a significant correlation with subjective methods. The certainty of evidence was very low.

Conclusion

The findings can suggest a correlation between the following subjective and objective methods: ACDAS, DAS, MCDAS, MDAS and Cortisol; CFSS-DS, DAS, MCDAS, MDAS and Alpha-amylase; and DAS, DAS-R, MDAS, S-DAI, Venham Picture Anxiety, Venham Picture Test and Heart rate. Nonetheless, these results lack conclusiveness due to their very low certainty of evidence.

Registration

PROSPERO database registration number CRD42022298589.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

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.