成人口腔健康筛查、转诊、行为咨询和预防干预:美国预防服务工作组的系统综述。

IF 63.1 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Roger Chou, Shelley S Selph, Christina Bougatsos, Chad Nix, Azrah Ahmed, Jessica Griffin, Eli Schwarz
{"title":"成人口腔健康筛查、转诊、行为咨询和预防干预:美国预防服务工作组的系统综述。","authors":"Roger Chou, Shelley S Selph, Christina Bougatsos, Chad Nix, Azrah Ahmed, Jessica Griffin, Eli Schwarz","doi":"10.1001/jama.2023.20685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Dental caries and periodontal disease are common adult oral health conditions and potentially amenable to primary care screening and prevention.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review the evidence on primary care screening and prevention of dental caries and periodontal disease in adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to October 3, 2022); surveillance through July 21, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Diagnostic accuracy studies of primary care screening instruments and oral examination; randomized and nonrandomized trials of screening and preventive interventions; cohort studies on primary care oral health screening and preventive intervention harms.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Diagnostic accuracy data were pooled using a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Dental caries, periodontal disease, morbidity, quality of life, harms; and diagnostic test accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five randomized clinical trials, 5 nonrandomized trials, and 6 observational studies (total 3300 participants) were included. One poor-quality trial (n = 477) found no difference between oral health screening during pregnancy vs no screening in caries, periodontal disease, or birth outcomes. One study (n = 86) found oral health examination by 2 primary care clinicians associated with low sensitivity (0.42 and 0.56) and high specificity (0.84 and 0.87) for periodontal disease and with variable sensitivity (0.33 and 0.83) and high specificity (0.80 and 0.93) for dental caries. Four studies (n = 965) found screening questionnaires associated with a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.83) and specificity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for periodontal disease. For preventive interventions no study evaluated primary care counseling or dental referral, and evidence from 2 poor-quality trials (n = 178) of sealants, and 1 fair-quality and 4 poor-quality trials (n = 971) of topical fluorides, was insufficient. Three fair-quality trials (n = 590) of persons with mean age 72 to 80 years found silver diamine fluoride solution associated with fewer new root caries lesions or fillings vs placebo (mean reduction, -0.33 to -1.3) and decreased likelihood of new root caries lesion (2 trials; adjusted odds ratio, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3-0.7]). No trial evaluated primary care-administered preventive interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Screening questionnaires were associated with moderate diagnostic accuracy for periodontal disease. Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of oral health primary care screening and preventive interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":54909,"journal":{"name":"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association","volume":" ","pages":"1780-1790"},"PeriodicalIF":63.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening, Referral, Behavioral Counseling, and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Adults: A Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.\",\"authors\":\"Roger Chou, Shelley S Selph, Christina Bougatsos, Chad Nix, Azrah Ahmed, Jessica Griffin, Eli Schwarz\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jama.2023.20685\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Dental caries and periodontal disease are common adult oral health conditions and potentially amenable to primary care screening and prevention.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review the evidence on primary care screening and prevention of dental caries and periodontal disease in adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to October 3, 2022); surveillance through July 21, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Diagnostic accuracy studies of primary care screening instruments and oral examination; randomized and nonrandomized trials of screening and preventive interventions; cohort studies on primary care oral health screening and preventive intervention harms.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Diagnostic accuracy data were pooled using a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Dental caries, periodontal disease, morbidity, quality of life, harms; and diagnostic test accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five randomized clinical trials, 5 nonrandomized trials, and 6 observational studies (total 3300 participants) were included. One poor-quality trial (n = 477) found no difference between oral health screening during pregnancy vs no screening in caries, periodontal disease, or birth outcomes. One study (n = 86) found oral health examination by 2 primary care clinicians associated with low sensitivity (0.42 and 0.56) and high specificity (0.84 and 0.87) for periodontal disease and with variable sensitivity (0.33 and 0.83) and high specificity (0.80 and 0.93) for dental caries. Four studies (n = 965) found screening questionnaires associated with a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.83) and specificity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for periodontal disease. For preventive interventions no study evaluated primary care counseling or dental referral, and evidence from 2 poor-quality trials (n = 178) of sealants, and 1 fair-quality and 4 poor-quality trials (n = 971) of topical fluorides, was insufficient. Three fair-quality trials (n = 590) of persons with mean age 72 to 80 years found silver diamine fluoride solution associated with fewer new root caries lesions or fillings vs placebo (mean reduction, -0.33 to -1.3) and decreased likelihood of new root caries lesion (2 trials; adjusted odds ratio, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3-0.7]). No trial evaluated primary care-administered preventive interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Screening questionnaires were associated with moderate diagnostic accuracy for periodontal disease. Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of oral health primary care screening and preventive interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1780-1790\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":63.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.20685\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.20685","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

重要性:龋齿和牙周病是常见的成人口腔健康状况,可能需要初级保健筛查和预防。目的:系统回顾成人龋齿和牙周病初级保健筛查和预防的证据,为美国预防服务工作队提供信息。数据来源:MEDLINE、Cochrane对照试验中央登记册和Cochrane系统评价数据库(至2022年10月3日);监测至2023年7月21日。研究选择:初级保健筛查仪器和口腔检查的诊断准确性研究;筛查和预防干预的随机和非随机试验;初级保健口腔健康筛查和预防性干预危害的队列研究。数据提取和合成:一名研究人员提取数据;第二次检查准确性。两名研究人员对研究质量进行了独立评价。使用双变量混合效应二元回归模型合并诊断准确性数据。主要结果和措施:龋齿、牙周病、发病率、生活质量、危害;以及诊断测试的准确性。结果:包括5项随机临床试验、5项非随机试验和6项观察性研究(共3300名参与者)。一个质量差的试验(n = 477)发现妊娠期口腔健康筛查与未筛查龋齿、牙周病或出生结果之间没有差异。一项研究(n = 86)发现,2名初级保健临床医生的口腔健康检查对牙周病具有低灵敏度(0.42和0.56)和高特异性(0.84和0.87),对龋齿具有可变灵敏度(0.33和0.83)和高特异性(0.80和0.93)。四项研究(n = 965)发现,筛查问卷对牙周病的合并敏感性为0.72(95%CI,0.57-0.83),特异性为0.74(95%CI,0.66-0.82)。对于预防性干预措施,没有研究评估初级保健咨询或牙科转诊,也没有来自2项低质量试验的证据(n = 178)的密封剂,以及1个质量良好和4个质量较差的试验(n = 971)的局部氟化物是不够的。三个质量尚可的试验(n = 590)平均年龄为72至80岁的人发现,与安慰剂相比,二胺氟化银溶液与更少的新根龋损伤或填充物相关(平均减少-0.33至-1.3),并降低了新根龋病变的可能性(2项试验;调整后的比值比,0.4[95%CI,0.3-0.7])。没有试验评估初级保健管理的预防干预措施。结论和相关性:筛查问卷对牙周病的诊断准确性适中。需要进行研究,以确定口腔健康初级保健筛查和预防干预的益处和危害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Screening, Referral, Behavioral Counseling, and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Adults: A Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Dental caries and periodontal disease are common adult oral health conditions and potentially amenable to primary care screening and prevention.

Objective: To systematically review the evidence on primary care screening and prevention of dental caries and periodontal disease in adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to October 3, 2022); surveillance through July 21, 2023.

Study selection: Diagnostic accuracy studies of primary care screening instruments and oral examination; randomized and nonrandomized trials of screening and preventive interventions; cohort studies on primary care oral health screening and preventive intervention harms.

Data extraction and synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Diagnostic accuracy data were pooled using a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model.

Main outcomes and measures: Dental caries, periodontal disease, morbidity, quality of life, harms; and diagnostic test accuracy.

Results: Five randomized clinical trials, 5 nonrandomized trials, and 6 observational studies (total 3300 participants) were included. One poor-quality trial (n = 477) found no difference between oral health screening during pregnancy vs no screening in caries, periodontal disease, or birth outcomes. One study (n = 86) found oral health examination by 2 primary care clinicians associated with low sensitivity (0.42 and 0.56) and high specificity (0.84 and 0.87) for periodontal disease and with variable sensitivity (0.33 and 0.83) and high specificity (0.80 and 0.93) for dental caries. Four studies (n = 965) found screening questionnaires associated with a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.83) and specificity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for periodontal disease. For preventive interventions no study evaluated primary care counseling or dental referral, and evidence from 2 poor-quality trials (n = 178) of sealants, and 1 fair-quality and 4 poor-quality trials (n = 971) of topical fluorides, was insufficient. Three fair-quality trials (n = 590) of persons with mean age 72 to 80 years found silver diamine fluoride solution associated with fewer new root caries lesions or fillings vs placebo (mean reduction, -0.33 to -1.3) and decreased likelihood of new root caries lesion (2 trials; adjusted odds ratio, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3-0.7]). No trial evaluated primary care-administered preventive interventions.

Conclusions and relevance: Screening questionnaires were associated with moderate diagnostic accuracy for periodontal disease. Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of oral health primary care screening and preventive interventions.

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
CiteScore
48.20
自引率
0.90%
发文量
1569
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) is an international peer-reviewed general medical journal. It has been published continuously since 1883. JAMA is a member of the JAMA Network, which is a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信