Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review evaluates diagnostic accuracy of self-reported questionnaires for periodontitis across cultures, suggesting improvements are needed.
To evaluate self-reported questionnaires' intrinsic validity and diagnostic accuracy for detecting periodontitis across diverse cultural and geographic contexts. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library until 4 March 2025. Studies included those using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Periodontology (CDC/AAP) criteria or the 2017 World Workshop classifications as reference standards and reporting the diagnostic accuracy of self-reported questionnaire items. The validity of the eight-item questionnaire developed by the CDC/AAP was assessed by analysing the proportion of answers, and bias was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. Owing to the limited number of studies using the 2017 World Workshop classifications, the quantitative synthesis was restricted to those using the CDC/AAP criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for total periodontitis (including mild, moderate and severe cases), moderate-to-severe periodontitis and severe periodontitis. Totally, 23 studies (from 22 articles) were included in the systematic review, with 16 studies (from 15 articles) eligible for meta-analysis. The 'Don't know/Refused' option across the eight items of the CDC/AAP questionnaire ranged from 0% to 46.1%, indicating variable comprehension of certain items. Pooled sensitivity and specificity across the questionnaire items ranged from 17% to 82% and from 23% to 97%, respectively. DOR varied from 0.75 (95% CI: 0.54-1.03) to 8.01 (95% CI: 2.33-27.45). Significant heterogeneity was observed for most questions. Self-reported questionnaires show potential for monitoring periodontitis but face issues with sensitivity and cross-cultural validity. Future research should focus on culturally adaptive designs and standardised validation protocols to enhance diagnostic accuracy and improve their effectiveness in global periodontal health screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: