ArticleBMC oral health2023
Harnessing the power of collective intelligence in dentistry: a pilot study in Victoria, Australia.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of crowdsourcing and collective intelligence in oral healthcare.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Observational Diagnostics: The Building Block of AI-Powered Visual Aid for Dental Practitioners.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Accuracy of Treatment Recommendations by Pragmatic Evidence Search and Artificial Intelligence: An Exploratory Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn many dental settings, diagnosis and treatment planning is the responsibility of a single clinician, and this process is inevitably influenced by the clinician's own heuristics and biases. Our aim was to test whether collective intelligence increases the accuracy of individual diagnoses and treatment plans, and whether such systems have potential to improve patient outcomes in a dental setting.
methodsThis pilot project was carried out to assess the feasibility of the protocol and appropriateness of the study design. We used a questionnaire survey and pre-post study design in which dental practitioners were involved in the diagnosis and treatment planning of two simulated cases. Participants were provided the opportunity to amend their original diagnosis/treatment decisions after viewing a consensus report made to simulate a collaborative setting.
resultsAround half (55%, n = 17) of the respondents worked in group private practices, however most practitioners (74%, n = 23) did not collaborate when planning treatment. Overall, the average practitioners' self-confidence score in managing different dental disciplines was 7.22 (s.d. 2.20) on a 1-10 scale. Practitioners tended to change their mind after viewing the consensus response, particularly for the complex case compared to the simple case (61.5% vs 38.5%, respectively). Practitioners' confidence ratings were also significantly higher (p < 0.05) after viewing the consensus for complex case.
conclusionOur pilot study shows that collective intelligence in the form of peers' opinion can lead to modifications in diagnosis and treatment planning by dentists. Our results lay the foundations for larger scale investigations on whether peer collaboration can improve diagnostic accuracy, treatment planning and, ultimately, oral health outcomes.
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.