ArticleClinical oral implants research2026
Reliability and Construct Validity of a Questionnaire for Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Implant Dentistry.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to evaluate the reliability and construct validity of a questionnaire assessing patient-reported outcomes following dental implant rehabilitation. MATERIAL AND
methodsA questionnaire was mailed to patients 8 years posttreatment to assess experiences with dental implant therapy, including satisfaction, oral function, perceived pretreatment information and complications. Patients completed the questionnaire again during a clinical examination. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and corrected item-total correlations (CITC), while test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Construct-related validity was examined through associations between questionnaire domains and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) measured by OHIP-14.
resultsA total of 206 patients completed the questionnaire twice. For individual items, ICCs ranged from 0.39 to 0.75 and CITCs from 0.39 to 0.66. The full questionnaire had an alpha of 0.78 and an ICC of 0.78. Construct-related validity was supported through associations between the questionnaire domains patient satisfaction, pretreatment information and the OHIP-14 sum scores.
conclusionsThe questionnaire demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability, good test-retest performance, and reasonable construct validity.
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.