Thankam Paul Thyvalikakath1,2, William D Duncan3, Zasim Siddiqui1, Michelle LaPradd4, George Eckert4, Titus Schleyer2,5, Donald Brad Rindal6, Mark Jurkovich6, Tracy Shea6, Gregg H Gilbert7. 1. Dental Informatics Core, Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry & Dental Public Health, Indiana University School of Dentistry, IUPUI, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 2. Center for Biomedical Informatics, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 3. Environmental Genomics and Systems Biology, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, United States. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 6. HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. 7. Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of conducting clinical research using electronic dental record (EDR) data from U.S. solo and small-group general dental practices in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (network) and evaluate the data completeness and correctness before performing survival analyses of root canal treatment (RCT) and posterior composite restorations (PCR). METHODS: Ninety-nine network general dentistry practices that used Dentrix or EagleSoft EDR shared de-identified data of patients who received PCR and/or RCT on permanent teeth through October 31, 2015. We evaluated the data completeness and correctness, summarized practice, and patient characteristics and summarized the two treatments by tooth type and arch location. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of practitioners were male, with a mean age of 49 and 22.4 years of clinical experience. The final dataset comprised 217,887 patients and 11,289,594 observations, with the observation period ranging from 0 to 37 years. Most patients (73%) were 18 to 64 years old; 56% were female. The data were nearly 100% complete. Eight percent of observations had incorrect data, such as incorrect tooth number or surface, primary teeth, supernumerary teeth, and tooth ranges, indicating multitooth procedures instead of PCR or RCT. Seventy-three percent of patients had dental insurance information; 27% lacked any insurance information. While gender was documented for all patients, race/ethnicity was missing in the dataset. CONCLUSION: This study established the feasibility of using EDR data integrated from multiple distinct solo and small-group network practices for longitudinal studies to assess treatment outcomes. The results laid the groundwork for a learning health system that enables practitioners to learn about their patients' outcomes by using data from their own practice. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of conducting clinical research using electronic dental record (EDR) data from U.S. solo and small-group general dental practices in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (network) and evaluate the data completeness and correctness before performing survival analyses of root canal treatment (RCT) and posterior composite restorations (PCR). METHODS: Ninety-nine network general dentistry practices that used Dentrix or EagleSoft EDR shared de-identified data of patients who received PCR and/or RCT on permanent teeth through October 31, 2015. We evaluated the data completeness and correctness, summarized practice, and patient characteristics and summarized the two treatments by tooth type and arch location. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of practitioners were male, with a mean age of 49 and 22.4 years of clinical experience. The final dataset comprised 217,887 patients and 11,289,594 observations, with the observation period ranging from 0 to 37 years. Most patients (73%) were 18 to 64 years old; 56% were female. The data were nearly 100% complete. Eight percent of observations had incorrect data, such as incorrect tooth number or surface, primary teeth, supernumerary teeth, and tooth ranges, indicating multitooth procedures instead of PCR or RCT. Seventy-three percent of patients had dental insurance information; 27% lacked any insurance information. While gender was documented for all patients, race/ethnicity was missing in the dataset. CONCLUSION: This study established the feasibility of using EDR data integrated from multiple distinct solo and small-group network practices for longitudinal studies to assess treatment outcomes. The results laid the groundwork for a learning health system that enables practitioners to learn about their patients' outcomes by using data from their own practice. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Valeria V Gordan; Cynthia W Garvan; Joshua S Richman; Jeffrey L Fellows; D Brad Rindal; Vibeke Qvist; Marc W Heft; O Dale Williams; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: Oper Dent Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.440
Authors: Donald Brad Rindal; Thomas J Flottemesch; Emily U Durand; Olga V Godlevsky; Andrew M Schmidt; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Amit Acharya; Jeffrey J VanWormer; Stephen C Waring; Aaron W Miller; Jay T Fuehrer; Gregory R Nycz Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: T Thyvalikakath; M LaPradd; Z Siddiqui; W D Duncan; G Eckert; J K Medam; D B Rindal; M Jurkovich; G H Gilbert Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 8.924
Authors: Marika M Cusick; Evan T Sholle; Marcos A Davila; Joseph Kabariti; Curtis L Cole; Thomas R Campion Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Stefanie Anna Peikert; Felix Mittelhamm; Eberhard Frisch; Kirstin Vach; Petra Ratka-Krüger; Johan Peter Woelber Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 2.757