INTRODUCTION: Self-reported history of endodontic treatment (SRHET) has been used as a simplified method to estimate the history of endodontic disease and treatment. This study aimed to quantify the validity of SRHET, as reported in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), as a method to identify individuals who experienced endodontic treatment (ET) and to identify individuals who present with apical periodontitis (AP). METHODS: SRHET was collected through the BLSA questionnaire in 247 participants. Data on ET and AP were determined from panoramic radiographs. The total number of ET, AP, and missing teeth were recorded for each individual. The validity of SRHET was determined based on ET and AP separately. Accuracy, efficiency, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (+PV and -PV), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (+LR and -LR) were calculated according to standard methods. RESULTS: After exclusions, 229 participants were available for ET analysis and 129 for AP analysis. The SRHET validity values were sensitivity (ET = 0.915, AP = 0.782), specificity (ET = 0.891, AP = 0.689), +PV (ET = 0.824, AP = 0.353), -PV (ET = 0.949, AP = 0.936), +LR (ET = 8.394, AP = 2.514), and -LR (ET = 0.095, AP = 0.316). CONCLUSIONS: SRHET was found to be a highly accurate method to predict ET but a weak predictor of the presence of AP among participants in the BLSA.
INTRODUCTION: Self-reported history of endodontic treatment (SRHET) has been used as a simplified method to estimate the history of endodontic disease and treatment. This study aimed to quantify the validity of SRHET, as reported in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), as a method to identify individuals who experienced endodontic treatment (ET) and to identify individuals who present with apical periodontitis (AP). METHODS:SRHET was collected through the BLSA questionnaire in 247 participants. Data on ET and AP were determined from panoramic radiographs. The total number of ET, AP, and missing teeth were recorded for each individual. The validity of SRHET was determined based on ET and AP separately. Accuracy, efficiency, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (+PV and -PV), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (+LR and -LR) were calculated according to standard methods. RESULTS: After exclusions, 229 participants were available for ET analysis and 129 for AP analysis. The SRHET validity values were sensitivity (ET = 0.915, AP = 0.782), specificity (ET = 0.891, AP = 0.689), +PV (ET = 0.824, AP = 0.353), -PV (ET = 0.949, AP = 0.936), +LR (ET = 8.394, AP = 2.514), and -LR (ET = 0.095, AP = 0.316). CONCLUSIONS:SRHET was found to be a highly accurate method to predict ET but a weak predictor of the presence of AP among participants in the BLSA.
Authors: Carlos Estrela; Mike Reis Bueno; Cláudio Rodrigues Leles; Bruno Azevedo; José Ribamar Azevedo Journal: J Endod Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Mark J Nesbitt; Mark A Reynolds; Harlan Shiau; Kyong Choe; Eleanor M Simonsick; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Dalva Maria Pereira Padilha; Juliana Balbinot Hilgert; Fernando Neves Hugo; Angelo José Gonçalves Bós; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: M S Gomes; F N Hugo; J B Hilgert; M Sant'Ana Filho; D M P Padilha; E M Simonsick; L Ferrucci; M A Reynolds Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 5.264