The OHStat Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: manuscript checklist.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research. Yet, ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force's writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and CONSORT harms guidelines and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces 7 new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

The OHStat Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: explanation and elaboration.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHstat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the Task Force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.

The Oral Health Statistics Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Explanation and Elaboration.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the Oral Health Statistics Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to task force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the task force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.

The Oral Health Statistical Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Manuscript Checklist.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research. Yet, ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the Oral Health Statistical (OHStat) Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force's writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials harms guidelines and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces 7 new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental researches into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

Dentists' attitudes towards chairside medical conditions screening in a dental setting in Saudi Arabia: an exploratory cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Screening for medical conditions (MCs) of public health importance is a first step in disease prevention and control. Prior studies in the United States found oral health care providers (OHCPS) embrace screening for increased risk of medical conditions in the dental setting. Our objectives were to assess Saudi Arabian (SA) dentist's attitudes, willingness and perceived barriers towards implementing screening for MCs into their dental practices. METHODS: A self-administered, 5-point Likert Scale (1 = very important/willing to 5 = very unimportant/unwilling) questionnaire was given to a convenience sample of 190 practicing dentists. Friedman nonparametric analysis of variance was used to compare responses within each question. RESULTS: Of the 143 responding dentists the mean age was 31 years; 102 (71%) were men. The majority felt it was important for a dentist to screen for cardiovascular disease (98.6%), hypertension (97.9%), diabetes (97.9%), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (97.9%), and hepatitis C virus (98.6%). Respondents were willing to refer a patient to a physician (97.9%); send samples to an outside laboratory (96.1%); conduct screening that yields immediate results (96.2%); and discuss results immediately with the patient (93.7%). Respondents were willing to measure/collect blood pressure (67.2%); weight and height (63.7%); and finger stick blood (54.6%). The whole responding dentists (100%) reported time as an important barrier. Respondents were significantly more willing to refer a patient for consultation than send samples to an outside laboratory (mean ranks: 2.32, 2.81, P < 0.001); significantly more willing to measure blood pressure than take oral fluids for salivary diagnostics (mean ranks 2.22, 2.75, p = 0.003). Insurance was significantly (P < 0.05) less important barrier than time, cost, patients' willingness or liability (mean ranks 3.56, 2.63, 3.00, 2.79, 3.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of dentists in this study reported positive attitudes towards and willingness to perform medical screenings in their practice. Time was an important factor.

Providing Health Screenings in a Dental Setting to Enhance Overall Health Outcomes.

Data suggest that providers and patients have a favorable attitude toward chairside screening in the dental setting and are willing to participate in these activities. Likewise, efficacy studies indicate this strategy can effectively identify patients who are at increased risk of disease or have the presence of disease risk factors and could benefit from medical follow-up. Studies suggest it is feasible to conduct these screenings in the dental setting. Although the American Dental Association has established screening treatment codes, challenges to widespread implementation still exist, including developing a provider reimbursement strategy and the need for adequate provider training.

A Comparison of Alkaline Water and Mediterranean Diet vs Proton Pump Inhibition for Treatment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux.

Importance: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common disorder with protean manifestations in the head and neck. In this retrospective study, we report the efficacy of a wholly dietary approach using alkaline water, a plant-based, Mediterranean-style diet, and standard reflux precautions compared with that of the traditional treatment approach of proton pump inhibition (PPI) and standard reflux precautions. Objective: To determine whether treatment with a diet-based approach with standard reflux precautions alone can improve symptoms of LPR compared with treatment with PPI and standard reflux precautions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective medical chart review of 2 treatment cohorts. From 2010 to 2012, 85 patients with LPR that were treated with PPI and standard reflux precautions (PS) were identified. From 2013 to 2015, 99 patients treated with alkaline water (pH >8.0), 90% plant-based, Mediterranean-style diet, and standard reflux precautions (AMS) were identified. The outcome was based on change in Reflux Symptom Index (RSI). Main Outcomes and Measures: Recorded change in the RSI after 6 weeks of treatment. Results: Of the 184 patients identified in the PS and AMS cohorts, the median age of participants in each cohort was 60 years (95% CI, 18-82) and 57 years (95% CI, 18-93), respectively (47 [56.3%] and 61 [61.7%] were women, respectively). The percentage of patients achieving a clinically meaningful (≥6 points) reduction in RSI was 54.1% in PS-treated patients and 62.6% in AMS-treated patients (difference between the groups, 8.05; 95% CI, -5.74 to 22.76). The mean reduction in RSI was 27.2% for the PS group and 39.8% in the AMS group (difference, 12.10; 95% CI, 1.53 to 22.68). Conclusions and Relevance: Our data suggest that the effect of PPI on the RSI based on proportion reaching a 6-point reduction in RSI is not significantly better than that of alkaline water, a plant-based, Mediterranean-style diet, and standard reflux precautions, although the difference in the 2 treatments could be clinically meaningful in favor of the dietary approach. The percent reduction in RSI was significantly greater with the dietary approach. Because the relationship between percent change and response to treatment has not been studied, the clinical significance of this difference requires further study. Nevertheless, this study suggests that a plant-based diet and alkaline water should be considered in the treatment of LPR. This approach may effectively improve symptoms and could avoid the costs and adverse effects of pharmacological intervention as well as afford the additional health benefits associated with a healthy, plant-based diet.

The Role of Oral Health Care Professionals in Providing Medical Services.

Integration of oral health care professionals (OHCPs) into medical care could advance efforts to control increasingly prevalent conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, human immunodeficiency virus infection, and hepatitis C infection, each of which is associated with significant morbidity and health care costs. Prevention and early intervention are effective for reducing the incidence and severity of these diseases, while increasing cost of health care may drive the need for nontraditional models of health education and delivery. Studies have suggested that a dental office is a suitable setting for the purpose of screening and referrals for these conditions and may result in medical expenditure savings. Such innovations would challenge the current dental educational model and the education and training of faculty. Implementing this change would require recognizing opportunities and challenges for the profession and the need for new competencies in dental curricula. Challenges and opportunities are described, including reimbursement models and integration of OHCPs into emerging health care delivery models. Ideas for curricular change are presented, including the need for added emphasis on biological sciences and the introduction of new courses to address systems thinking and forces driving preventive behavior. To embrace the evolving health care arena and be a part of the future interprofessional health care delivery dynamic, dental curricula should also include substantive interprofessional education opportunities. Such opportunities would provide the basic skills and training to recognize and appreciate patients' oral health issues in the broader context of their overall health and well-being. This article was written as part of the project "Advancing Dental Education in the 21st Century."

Addressing obesity in the dental setting: What can be learned from oral health care professionals' efforts to screen for medical conditions.

PURPOSE: This scoping review focused on what can be learned from oral health professionals' (OHCPs) efforts to provide screenings for medical conditions in the dental setting that could guide strategies for addressing childhood obesity. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Grey Literature, and CINAHL were searched (limitation English language). Search terms covered OHCPs and various oral systemic conditions of interest (details provided in the paper. Nineteen unduplicated, relevant articles were categorized based on relationship to question. RESULTS: Screening for diabetes and heart disease risk in the dental setting has been shown to be effective and patients and providers are willing to participate, although not yet routinely implemented. Screening/counseling for tobacco-cessation has been shown to be effective, but few (<10 percent) OHCPs provided this activity or received tobacco cessation training. For obesity screening/counseling, the majority of dentists (82 percent) reported they would be more willing to offer this service if obesity were directly related to oral disease. The one healthy weight intervention pilot study was well received by caregivers/patients and resulted in improved food choices. Successful implementation included a dedicated staff member, the dental hygienist. Lack of adequate training was a commonly reported barrier for all of these conditions; in addition, for obesity screening/counseling fear of appearing judgmental, and fear of patient rejection were also commonly reported. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic studies are needed building on existing literature and exploring best implementation practices. Enhanced training is needed on relationship of oral health and systemic health and OHCPs' role.

Implementation of cystic fibrosis clinical pathways improved physician adherence to care guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: There is significant variability in clinical outcomes, including growth and lung function, between the various cystic fibrosis (CF) centers. No specific or unique therapeutic practices have been identified to account for these differences. However, more uniform care within centers was associated with better outcomes. The objective of this study was to implement clinical pathways for diagnosis and treatment of nutritional failure and lung inflammation in order to achieve better health care provider adherence to center-specific, agreed-on practices. METHODS: Agreed-on clinical pathway treatment plans for both nutrition and lower airway inflammation were implemented on January 1, 2010. The primary outcome measure was to evaluate if patients' diagnoses and treatments were consistent with the agreed-on clinical pathways. RESULTS: The proportion of clinic visits from baseline to 18 months post-intervention where the provider completely followed nutrition clinical pathway increased from 57.72% to 79.49% (P = 0.049) and the proportion for lower airway inflammation clinical pathway increased from 65.85% to 86.32% (P = 0.035). The use of nutritional diagnosis and documentation of associated clinical pathway in the clinical plan increased from 16.26% to 61.54% and 56.10% to 94.87%, respectively. Similarly, diagnosis of lower airway inflammation and documentation related to their treatment plans increased from 1.63% to 43.59% and 30.08% to 87.18%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementation of clinical pathways for nutrition and lower airway inflammation issues resulted in more uniform care of CF patients. Having objective criteria for diagnoses and agreed-on treatment plans for each of those diagnoses allowed for monitoring and individual feedback. Increases in utilization of correct diagnoses and discussion of specific therapeutic interventions in the clinic notes were associated with increased adherence to clinical pathways. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2017;52:175-181. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indian patients' attitudes towards chairside screening in a dental setting for medical conditions.

BACKGROUND: India has a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes mellitus (DM), tuberculosis (TB), human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune-deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and hepatitis B. United States-based studies indicate provider and patient support for medical screening in the dental setting. We assessed patient attitudes towards, and willingness to participate in, medical screening in the dental setting in India. METHOD: A 5-point Likert scale survey (with scores ranging from 1=very important/willing to 5=very unimportant/unwilling) was given to a convenience sample of adult patients visiting five university-based dental clinics (clinic group) and one private-practice setting (private group). The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare mean response scores between patient groups. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with a favourable outcome. RESULTS: Both patient groups felt it important for dentists to identify increased risk for medical conditions (89.3% vs. 94.9%, respectively; P=0.02). The majority of patients were willing to have a dentist screen for the specified conditions: CVD (80.6% clinic and 84.5% private); DM (84.5% clinic and 77.5% private); TB (76.7% clinic and 73.2% private); hepatitis (73.3% clinic and 67.5% private); and HIV/AIDS (71.0% clinic and 70.5% private). The majority of patients were willing to participate in chairside screening that yielded immediate results (84.6% clinic and 86.1% private), discuss results immediately (85.8% clinic and 87.2% private) and pay 150 Indian rupees (55.9% clinic and 91.7% private). Younger patients (<40 years of age) were significantly less likely to respond favourably to: importance of medical screening in dental settings [adjusted odds ratio (OR)=0.63; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.26-0.84] and be available for screening that yielded immediate results (adjusted OR=0.63; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Indian dental patients were in favour of chairside medical screening.

Physicians' attitudes toward medical screening in a dental setting.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed primary care physicians' attitudes toward medical screening in a dental setting. METHODS: A 5-point Likert scale (1 = very important/willing, 5 = very unimportant/unwilling) survey was mailed to a nationwide sample of primary care physicians in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used for all questions, and the Friedman nonparametric analysis of variance was used for multipart questions. RESULTS: Of 1,508 respondents, the majority felt it was valuable for dentists to conduct screening for cardiovascular disease (61 percent), hypertension (77 percent), diabetes mellitus (71 percent), and HIV infection (64 percent). Respondents were willing to discuss results with the dentist (76 percent), accept patient referrals (89 percent), and felt it was unimportant that the medical referral came from a dentist rather than a physician (52 percent). The most important consideration was patient willingness (mean rank 2.55), and the least important was duplication of roles (mean rank 3.52). Level of dentist's training was significantly (P < 0.05) more important than duplication of roles and reimbursement (mean ranks 2.84, 3.52, and 3.14, respectively), and significantly less important than patient willingness (mean rank 2.55). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians considered chairside medical screening in a dental setting to be valuable and worthwhile.

Dentists' willingness to provide expanded HIV screening in oral health care settings: results from a nationally representative survey.

OBJECTIVES: Using a nationally representative survey, we determined dentists' willingness to provide oral rapid HIV screening in the oral health care setting. METHODS: From November 2010 through November 2011, a nationally representative survey of general dentists (sampling frame obtained from American Dental Association Survey Center) examined barriers and facilitators to offering oral HIV rapid testing (n = 1802; 70.7% response). Multiple logistic regression analysis examined dentists' willingness to conduct this screening and perceived compatibility with their professional role. RESULTS: Agreement with the importance of annual testing for high-risk persons and familiarity with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations regarding routine HIV testing were positively associated with willingness to conduct such screening. Respondents' agreement with patients' acceptance of HIV testing and colleagues' improved perception of them were also positively associated with willingness. CONCLUSIONS: Oral HIV rapid testing is potentially well suited to the dental setting. Although our analysis identified many predictors of dentists' willingness to offer screening, there are many barriers, including dentists' perceptions of patients' acceptance, that must be addressed before such screening is likely to be widely implemented.

The effect of chairside chronic disease screenings by oral health professionals on health care costs.

OBJECTIVES: We estimated short-term health care cost savings that would result from oral health professionals performing chronic disease screenings. METHODS: We used population data, estimates of chronic disease prevalence, and rates of medication adherence from the literature to estimate cost savings that would result from screening individuals aged 40 years and older who have seen a dentist but not a physician in the last 12 months. We estimated 1-year savings if patients identified during screening in a dental setting were referred to a physician, completed their referral, and started pharmacological treatment. RESULTS: We estimated that medical screenings for diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia in dental offices could save the health care system from $42.4 million ($13.51 per person screened) to $102.6 million ($32.72 per person screened) over 1 year, dependent on the rate of referral completion from the dental clinic to the physician's office. CONCLUSIONS: Oral health professionals can potentially play a bigger role in detecting chronic disease in the US population. Additional prevention and monitoring activities over the long term could achieve even greater savings and health benefits.

Screening for coronary heart disease and diabetes risk in a dental setting.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart disease, among the most prevalent chronic conditions worldwide, are increasing among younger adults who are unaware of their risk status. Previous studies in the United States have shown the efficacy of screening for risk of heart disease and diabetes in a dental setting. A screening strategy was applied to facilitate early identification of individuals at increased disease risk in a single Indian dental institute. METHODS: 158 patients >30 years old, with no reported heart disease or diabetes, and unaware of any increased disease risk were enrolled. Blood pressure, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein levels and body mass index were collected. The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) was calculated as an indication of global risk of developing a coronary heart disease (CHD) event within 10 years; hemoglobin A1c level was used to determine DM risk. RESULTS: Eleven percent had increased risk of heart disease (FRS >10%) and 32% had abnormal A1c levels (>5.7%). At least one risk factor was present in 61 and 39% presented with two or more risk factors. Hypertension and obesity were the most common risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a dental setting in a developing country could serve as a resource for early identification of patients at increased risk of developing CHD and DM, yet unaware of their increased risk. The dental setting can also serve as an entry point into the medical care system by identifying asymptomatic patients at increased risk of disease and referring these individuals to a primary care provider.

Assessing systemic disease risk in a dental setting: a public health perspective.

Screening and monitoring for systemic disease risk in a dental setting are valuable components for more effective disease prevention and control and health care delivery. This strategy can identify patients at increased risk of disease yet unaware of their increased risk and who may benefit from proven prevention/intervention strategies. The involvement of oral health care professionals in strategies to identify individuals at risk for coronary heart disease and diabetes will extend preventive and screening efforts necessary to slow the development of these diseases, and provide a portal for individuals who do not see a physician on a regular basis to enter into the general health care system.