How Oral Medicine Practice Is Reported: A Scoping Review of 114,971 Patients.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Oral diseases Pub Date : 2025-07-02 DOI:10.1111/odi.70017

Camila Barcellos Calderipe, Laura Borges Kirschnick, Alini Cardoso Soares, Ana Carolina Uchoa Vasconcelos, Marcio Ajudarte Lopes, Nathaniel Simon Treister, Alan Roger Santos-Silva

{"title":"How Oral Medicine Practice Is Reported: A Scoping Review of 114,971 Patients.","authors":"Camila Barcellos Calderipe, Laura Borges Kirschnick, Alini Cardoso Soares, Ana Carolina Uchoa Vasconcelos, Marcio Ajudarte Lopes, Nathaniel Simon Treister, Alan Roger Santos-Silva","doi":"10.1111/odi.70017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This review aimed to: (i) identify the variables used by oral medicine services (OMS) to describe the scope of their clinical practices and (ii) identify gaps in the availability of these variables in the literature to guide future research on the characterisation of OM practices. To address the following question: What characteristics from studies on clinical practice have been used to describe the scope of practice in OM?Material and methods: This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Electronic searches were conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS and grey literature. The presence of the following variables was assessed: referral source, age, sex, medical profile, diagnosis, procedures and follow-up.Results: A total of 12 studies met the eligibility criteria, comprising 15 OMS across 10 countries and including 114,971 patients. Some studies specifically aimed to characterise OMS practice, while others focused on specific aspects of these practices. Most studies examined variables such as referral source, age, sex and diagnosis.Conclusions: There are gaps in the description of the OMS scope of practice in the literature, particularly regarding patient follow-up, characterisation of the range of procedures performed and documentation of patients' medical profiles.","PeriodicalId":19615,"journal":{"name":"Oral diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.70017","RegionNum":3,"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: This review aimed to: (i) identify the variables used by oral medicine services (OMS) to describe the scope of their clinical practices and (ii) identify gaps in the availability of these variables in the literature to guide future research on the characterisation of OM practices. To address the following question: What characteristics from studies on clinical practice have been used to describe the scope of practice in OM?

Material and methods: This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Electronic searches were conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS and grey literature. The presence of the following variables was assessed: referral source, age, sex, medical profile, diagnosis, procedures and follow-up.

Results: A total of 12 studies met the eligibility criteria, comprising 15 OMS across 10 countries and including 114,971 patients. Some studies specifically aimed to characterise OMS practice, while others focused on specific aspects of these practices. Most studies examined variables such as referral source, age, sex and diagnosis.

Conclusions: There are gaps in the description of the OMS scope of practice in the literature, particularly regarding patient follow-up, characterisation of the range of procedures performed and documentation of patients' medical profiles.

查看原文本刊更多论文

如何报道口腔医学实践：114,971例患者的范围审查。

目的：本综述旨在：(i)确定口腔医学服务（OMS）用于描述其临床实践范围的变量，（ii）确定文献中这些变量可用性的差距，以指导未来OM实践特征的研究。回答以下问题：临床实践研究的哪些特征被用来描述医学实践的范围？材料和方法：本综述遵循PRISMA-ScR指南。在PubMed、Scopus、Embase、Web of Science、LILACS和grey literature等数据库中进行电子检索。评估了以下变量的存在：转诊来源、年龄、性别、医疗概况、诊断、程序和随访。结果：共有12项研究符合资格标准，包括10个国家的15个OMS，包括114,971名患者。一些研究专门针对OMS实践的特点，而另一些研究则侧重于这些实践的具体方面。大多数研究考察了转诊来源、年龄、性别和诊断等变量。结论：文献中对OMS实践范围的描述存在空白，特别是在患者随访、所执行程序范围的特征和患者医疗档案的记录方面。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Oral diseases 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

5.30%

发文量

325

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Oral Diseases is a multidisciplinary and international journal with a focus on head and neck disorders, edited by leaders in the field, Professor Giovanni Lodi (Editor-in-Chief, Milan, Italy), Professor Stefano Petti (Deputy Editor, Rome, Italy) and Associate Professor Gulshan Sunavala-Dossabhoy (Deputy Editor, Shreveport, LA, USA). The journal is pre-eminent in oral medicine. Oral Diseases specifically strives to link often-isolated areas of dentistry and medicine through broad-based scholarship that includes well-designed and controlled clinical research, analytical epidemiology, and the translation of basic science in pre-clinical studies. The journal typically publishes articles relevant to many related medical specialties including especially dermatology, gastroenterology, hematology, immunology, infectious diseases, neuropsychiatry, oncology and otolaryngology. The essential requirement is that all submitted research is hypothesis-driven, with significant positive and negative results both welcomed. Equal publication emphasis is placed on etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention and treatment.