Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Dental Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Flack, V.F.
Right arrow Articles by White, S.C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Flack, V.F.
Right arrow Articles by White, S.C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Relationships Between Clinician Variability and Radiographic Guidelines

V.F. Flack

Department of Biostatistics, UCLA School of Public Health, Box 951772, Los Angeles, California 90095-1772

K.A. Atchison

UCLA School of Dentistry

E.R. Hewlett

UCLA School of Dentistry

S.C. White

UCLA School of Dentistry

This study evaluated the replicability of clinical measurements under careful calibration of multiple dentists and how the replicability can relate to their use as selection criteria in guidelines for prescribing dental radiographs. For 48 consenting patients, three dentists clinically examined each patient and recorded the presence of all clinical findings using standardized selection criteria. The examinations were performed independently of each other, but with periodic conferences of the dentists to clarify general measurement criteria. The degree of agreement among the dentists is described by the interrater agreement kappa for several standard clinical indications such as rating of caries, periodontal disease, and tooth mobility. Almost perfect agreement was obtained for tooth status, restoration size, and restoration material. Moderate agreement resulted for measures of caries, defective restoration presence, and gingival recession presence. Only fair agreement was obtained for other periodontal disease measures. The relationship between extent of agreement and guidelines' results was examined for the FDA Guidelines. The differences among the dentists' clinical measurements resulted in considerable differences among the radiographs that were selected by the FDA Guidelines' criteria. Even so, the missed disease rates for 490 patients in a larger study of the FDA Guidelines' efficacy were very low and did not vary greatly among the three dentists. We conclude that guidelines' criteria can be quite robust to variation from dentists' clinical measurement differences, as seen from the FDA Guidelines applied under the idealized setting where the dentists are periodically recalibrated through group discussions of the clinical measurements' definitions and interpretations.

Key Words: Radiography (dental) • guidelines, statistics • Received December 1, 1994 • Accepted November 16, 1995

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 75, No. 2, 775-782 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345960750020701


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
ADA COUNCIL ON SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS
An update on radiographic practices: information and recommendations
J Am Dent Assoc, February 1, 2001; 132(2): 234 - 238.
[Full Text] [PDF]