ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Exploring confidence in recognizing oral cancer among dentists and dental students.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore correlation between ability of dentists and dental students to recognise the clinical presentation of oral cancer and their self-rated confidence.
methodsA cross-sectional, analytical design was used for this study. A validated oral disease recognition scale (ODRS) encompassing a range of benign, premalignant, and malignant oral conditions was used for data collection. For each of the seven patient cases, the participants were asked to provide a diagnosis and rate their self-perceived confidence. Confidence ratings were used as a predictor in a logistic regression model to determine its value as a predictor of diagnosis accuracy, controlling for other factors.
resultsA total of 252 participants completed the online survey. All correlations between pairs of Cases are positive and statistically significant (p < 0.001). An ordinal logistic regression model predicting Correct vs. Incorrect based on Confidence, Case, participant status, participant gender, and participant age group (and a random effect for participant) suggests that each unit increase in confidence results in a 0.235 unit increase in log-odds of a correct response (an Odds Ratio of 1.265, p < 0.001).
conclusionsOverall, confidence ratings appear to predict diagnosis accuracy, after controlling for case and participant characteristics. Notwithstanding the limitations of the current study, the oral disease recognition scale may serve as a useful tool to assess clinicians' ability to recognize oral cancer and identify potential cognitive biases in their clinical assessment skills. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study highlights the correlations between diagnostic accuracy and confidence of dentists and dental students in identifying oral cancer, which is crucial for timely referral and improved patient outcomes. By identifying gaps in diagnostic confidence and potential cognitive biases, the findings can inform targeted educational interventions for reliable oral cancer screening in general dental practice.
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.