Ksenija Rener-Sitar1, Mike T John2, Vy Truong3, Sailee Tambe4, Nicole Theis-Mahon5. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Department of Prosthodontics, University Dental Clinics, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Electronic address: ksenija.rener@mf.uni-lj.si. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. Health Sciences Libraries, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) can be differentiated into outcome measures for all oral diseases, so-called disease-generic dPROMs, and measures for specific oral diseases, so-called disease-specific dPROMs. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the psychometrically validated nonmalignant disease-specific dPROMs for adult patients and the dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) they measure. METHODS: This systematic review searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane databases along with hand searching, through July 28, 2020, to identify original articles of English language, multi-item dPROMs for adult dental patients with a specific oral disease, condition, or oral manifestations of systemic diseases. We analyzed the questionnaires for content commonalities, the reference or recall period, and the dimensionality. RESULTS: We retrieved 4228 unique references and identified 34 questionnaires; of which, 31 questionnaires captured impacts from oral diseases or conditions and three from oral manifestations of systemic diseases. All questionnaires together contained 102 dPROMs, measuring 75 dPROs. Oral health-related quality of life was a broader dPRO, which was measured by 24 dPROMs. The 74 narrower dPROs were measured by 78 dPROMs. The dPRO names suggested that essentially four dPROs were measured: Oral Function (N = 19), Orofacial Pain (N = 7), Orofacial Appearance (N = 11), and Psychosocial Impact (N = 37). CONCLUSIONS: Many psychometrically validated tools (N = 102) are available to measure the impact of specific nonmalignant oral disease on patients. While these tools intend to measure the particular patient-perceived impact profile of the oral disease, all tools measure in essence only four, more general concepts - the dimensions of oral health-related quality of life.
OBJECTIVES: Dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) can be differentiated into outcome measures for all oral diseases, so-called disease-generic dPROMs, and measures for specific oral diseases, so-called disease-specific dPROMs. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the psychometrically validated nonmalignant disease-specific dPROMs for adult patients and the dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) they measure. METHODS: This systematic review searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane databases along with hand searching, through July 28, 2020, to identify original articles of English language, multi-item dPROMs for adult dental patients with a specific oral disease, condition, or oral manifestations of systemic diseases. We analyzed the questionnaires for content commonalities, the reference or recall period, and the dimensionality. RESULTS: We retrieved 4228 unique references and identified 34 questionnaires; of which, 31 questionnaires captured impacts from oral diseases or conditions and three from oral manifestations of systemic diseases. All questionnaires together contained 102 dPROMs, measuring 75 dPROs. Oral health-related quality of life was a broader dPRO, which was measured by 24 dPROMs. The 74 narrower dPROs were measured by 78 dPROMs. The dPRO names suggested that essentially four dPROs were measured: Oral Function (N = 19), Orofacial Pain (N = 7), Orofacial Appearance (N = 11), and Psychosocial Impact (N = 37). CONCLUSIONS: Many psychometrically validated tools (N = 102) are available to measure the impact of specific nonmalignant oral disease on patients. While these tools intend to measure the particular patient-perceived impact profile of the oral disease, all tools measure in essence only four, more general concepts - the dimensions of oral health-related quality of life.
Authors: M T John; M Omara; N Su; T List; S Sekulic; B Häggman-Henrikson; C M Visscher; K Bekes; D R Reissmann; K Baba; O Schierz; N Theis-Mahon; K Fueki; T Stamm; L Bondemark; I Oghli; A van Wijk; P Larsson Journal: J Evid Based Dent Pract Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 5.267
Authors: Swaha Pattanaik; Chi Hyun Lee; Mike T John; Phonsuda Chanthavisouk; Danna Paulson Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Katrin Bekes; Mike T John; Ksenija Rener-Sitar; Mohammad H Al-Harthy; Ambra Michelotti; Daniel R Reissmann; Julijana Nikolovska; Sahityaveera Sanivarapu; Folake B Lawal; Thomas List; Sanja Peršić Kiršić; Ljiljana Strajnić; Rodrigo Casassus; Kazuyoshi Baba; Martin Schimmel; Ama Amuasi; Ruwan D Jayasinghe; Sanela Strujić-Porović; Christopher C Peck; Han Xie; Karina Haugaard Bendixen; Miguel Angel Simancas-Pallares; Eka Perez-Franco; Mohammad Mehdi Naghibi Sistani; Patricia Valerio; Natalia Letunova; Nazik Nurelhuda; David W Bartlett; Ikeoluwa A Oluwafemi; Saloua Dghoughi; Joao N A R Ferreira; Pathamas Chantaracherd; Stella Sekulić Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-06-13 Impact factor: 3.186