↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic validity of self-reported oral health outcomes in population surveys: literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic validity of self-reported oral health outcomes in population surveys: literature review
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, September 2013
DOI 10.1590/s1415-790x2013000300015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renato Quirino Ramos, João Luiz Bastos, Marco Aurélio Peres

Abstract

Population-based health surveys are increasingly including self-reported oral health measures. However, their validity is frequently questioned. This study aimed to review the diagnostic validity of self-reported oral health measures - regarding periodontal conditions, number of remaining teeth and use and need of prostheses - and to present prototypes of oral health items to assess periodontal conditions. Papers published between 1991 and 2011 were identified through PubMed database. The sample profile, the sample size and the methods used in each study were analyzed, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the oral health items. Periodontists were contacted, using a standardized text, sent by e-mail, which asked them to provide self-reported items regarding periodontal conditions. We reviewed 19 studies; 13 assessed periodontal conditions; five, the number of remaining teeth and four, the use and need of prosthesis - some studies evaluated two or more conditions simultaneously. Five of the eight periodontists suggested questions to assess periodontal conditions. The maximum and the minimum sensitivity values to assess periodontal conditions, number of remaining teeth and use and need of prosthesis were 100 and 2%; 91 and 21%; 100 and 100%; respectively; the maximum and the minimum specificity values were 100 and 18%; 97 and 96%; 93 and 93%; respectively. In conclusion, there are acceptable sensitivity and specificity values for number of remaining teeth and use and need of prosthesis only. Finally, we consider there is the need for further studies in the national context, in order to assess the impact of the questions about self-reported oral health conditions in epidemiological analyses. Therefore, it will be possible to empirically verify if self-reported questions can be used in such studies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Professor 1 4%
Unknown 20 71%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Unknown 20 71%