ArticleBritish dental journal2017
Uptake of screening for type 2 diabetes risk in general dental practice; an exploratory study.
Article in British dental journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging Dental Visits for Systemic Health: Diabetes Screening and Referral Compliance in Periodontitis Patients in Malaysia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Referral Compliance Following a Diabetes Screening in a Dental Setting: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Validation of a Simplified Digital Periodontal Health Screening Module for General Dental Practitioners.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Chairside Diabetes Screening: A Survey of Dental Providers at the Largest Municipal Healthcare System in the United States.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2021Article
- Diabetes mellitus risk among Jordanians in a dental setting: a cross-sectional study.International dental journal · 2020Article
- Prevalence of Undiagnosed Diabetes and Prediabetes in the Dental Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of dentistry · 2020Review
- Use of Dental Practices for the Identification of Adults With Undiagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus or Nondiabetic Hyperglycemia: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The objective of this study was to determine dental patients' uptake of two preliminary screening tools for risk of diabetes (the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score -FINDRISC- and HbA1c finger-prick testing) in general dental practice, and to determine the number of patients at risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) based on the results of these screening tests.Methods Patients aged 45 and over, who did not already have a diagnosis of diabetes, visiting primary dental practitioners for routine appointments in London (N = 244) and Staffordshire (N = 276), were offered the chance to be screened for diabetes risk using the FINDRISC a self-report screening tool to assess risk of development of diabetes in the next ten years. If a patient's score showed them to be at risk, they were offered an instant HbA1c finger-prick test to further screen for possible type 2 diabetes, where they were given their result instantaneously. Patients found to be at risk on either screening test, were referred to their GP for formal diagnostic testing.Results A total of 1,035 patients eligible for inclusion were asked to take part. Five hundred and twenty patients consented to screening. Of these, 258 patients (49.6%) were found to be at risk of developing diabetes based on FINDRISC scores and were referred to the GP for further testing and offered a further screening finger-prick blood test at the dental practice. A total of 242 (93.8% of those offered the test) accepted the on the spot finger-prick test. On this A1c test, had a result of 5.7% or higher, indicating increased risk for diabetes. Of the 258 who were referred to their GP for formal diabetes testing, 155 (60%) contacted their doctor. There was a significant association between the number of 'at risk' screening results a person received and whether or not a patient contacted their GP (P <0.0001). The odds of patients contacting the GP was 3.22 times higher if they were referred with two positive diabetes risk results (positive FINDRISC, positive HbA1c) rather than just one (positive FINDRISC, negative HbA1c).Conclusions The study demonstrates a two-step method of diabetes screening that appears to be acceptable by dental patients, a sizeable proportion of whom were identified as at risk of developing diabetes, and the majority following the recommendation for further testing with their GP. While the majority followed the recommendation for further testing with their GP, patients were three times more likely to contact their GP if they received a positive risk result on both screening tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.