Dental fear/anxiety among children and adolescents. A systematic review.

AIM: The aim of this paper was to review the published scientific literature to quantify the prevalence and mean score of dental fear/anxiety (DFA) in children/adolescents and its variation according to several variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross- sectional and cohort studies published from 2000 to 2014, that measured DFA in children /adolescents (aged 0-19 years), in the general population, or visiting private or public dental services (general or pediatric) or attending school and kindergarten, were searched, with specific terms, in 3 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web Of Science). Primary data, collected with specific questionnaires of demonstrated reliability and/or validity, were extracted. RESULTS: After screening 743 abstracts and evaluating 164 full-text publications, 36 articles were selected. Dental fear/anxiety prevalence rates were 12.2%, 10.0%, 12.2%,11.0% and 20.0% for the CFSS-DS, DAS, MDAS, DFS, and DFSS-SF scores, respectively. In the studies that used MCDAS Dental fear/prevalence rates varied from 13.3% to 29.3%. In the studies that used CFSS-DS ratings, the prevalence and the mean score of dental fear/anxiety was lower in Northern Europe than the remaining countries, the prevalence decreased with increasing age and the frequency was higher in females than males. CONCLUSIONS: Dental fear/anxiety is a common problem in children/adolescents worldwide, therefore, new strategies to overcome this relevant children/adolescent condition should be encouraged.

Reliability and validity of the Italian versions of the Children's Fear Survey Schedule - Dental Subscale and the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale.

AIM: Children's dental fear and anxiety (DFA) causes significant problems in clinical practice. The 15-item Children's Fear Survey Schedule - Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) and the 8-item Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale (MCDAS) are the most widely used measures of dental fear in children. The aim of this study is to examine the reliability and validity of the Italian versions of the CFSS-DS and MCDAS, also in comparison with a simple visual analogue scale (VAS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CFSS-DS and MCDAS were translated into Italian by a consensus panel of experts and administered to 210 dental patients aged 4-11 years from three Italian Institutions. Internal reliability was assessed using the Cronbach's alpha correlation. A sub-sample of 60 children was selected for test-retest analysis. CFSS-DS and MCDAS, plus a VAS scale, rated both by children and parents, were validated using as gold standard the 4-item Frankl scale for behaviours assessed by dentists. RESULTS: Mean CFSS-DS score was 30.8 (SD: 11.1) and mean MCDAS score was 17.9 (SD: 7.2), significantly higher among children aged 4-7 years and among children at their first dental visit. The alpha value for internal reliability was 0.90 (95%, CI= 0.88-0.92) for CFSS-DS and 0.87 (95% CI=0.85-0.90) for MCDAS. Both CFSS-DS and MCDAS showed good test-retest reliability (rsp= 0.80; p<0.001 for both scales). CFSS-DS and MCDAS predicted a Frankl score ≤2 (i.e., indicating children with an uncooperative behaviour) with a fair accuracy (AUC=0.69 and AUC=0.68, respectively). The VAS scale was more effective in predicting a negative behaviour (AUC=0.78). The scales self-reported by children were only slightly more accurate than those reported by parents. CONCLUSION: The Italian versions of the CFSS-DS and MCDAS are valid and reliable tools for the assessment of dental fear in Italian children aged 4-11 years. A simple, one-item VAS, and dental fear and anxiety evaluation by parents may be valid and quick alternatives to multi-item indices to predict an uncooperative children behaviour.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations.

This is the third and last article in the series about the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines and its application in the field of allergy. We describe the factors that influence the strength of recommendations about the use of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic interventions: the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, the quality of a body of evidence related to a decision, patients' values and preferences, and considerations of resource use. We provide examples from two recently developed guidelines in the field of allergy that applied the GRADE approach. The main advantages of this approach are the focus on patient important outcomes, explicit consideration of patients' values and preferences, the systematic approach to collecting the evidence, the clear separation of the concepts of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, and transparent reporting of the decision process. The focus on transparency facilitates understanding and implementation and should empower patients, clinicians and other health care professionals to make informed choices.