↓ Skip to main content

Are standardized caries risk assessment models effective in assessing actual caries status and future caries increment? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 702)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Are standardized caries risk assessment models effective in assessing actual caries status and future caries increment? A systematic review
Published in
BMC Oral Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12903-018-0585-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Grazia Cagetti, Giuliana Bontà, Fabio Cocco, Peter Lingstrom, Laura Strohmenger, Guglielmo Campus

Abstract

Assessing caries risk is an essential element in the planning of preventive and therapeutic strategies. Different caries risk assessment (CRA) models have been proposed for the identification of individuals running a risk of future caries. This systematic review was designed to evaluate whether standardized caries risk assessment (CRA) models are able to evaluate the risk according to the actual caries status and/or the future caries increment. Randomized clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, comparative studies, validation studies and evaluation studies, reporting caries risk assessment using standardized models (Cariogram, CAMBRA, PreViser, NUS-CRA and CAT) in patients of any age related to caries data recorded by DMFT/S or ICDAS indices, were included. PubMed, Scopus and Embase were searched from 2000 to 2016. A search string was developed. All the papers meeting the inclusion criteria were subjected to a quality assessment.  One thousand three-undred ninety-two papers were identified and 32 were included. In all but one, the Cariogram was used both as sole model or in conjunction with other models. All the papers on children (n = 16) and adults (n = 12) found a statistically significant association between the risk levels and the actual caries status and/or the future caries increment. Nineteen papers, all using the Cariogram except one, were classified as being of good quality. Three of four papers comprising children and adults found a positive association. For seven of the included papers, Cariogram sensibility and specificity were calculated; sensibility ranged from low (41.0) to fairly low (75.0), while specificity was higher, ranging from 65.8 to 88.0. Wide 95% confidence intervals for both parameters were found, indicating that the reliability of the model differed in different caries risk levels. The scientific evidence relating to standardized CRA models is still limited; even if Cariogram was tested in children and adults in few studies of good quality, no sufficient evidence is available to affirm the method is effective in caries assessment and prediction. New options of diagnosis, prognosis and therapy are now available to dentists but the validity of standardized CRA models still remains limited.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 13 39%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 48%
Unspecified 13 39%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2019.
All research outputs
#170,975
of 13,465,676 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#3
of 702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,298
of 266,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,465,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 702 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them