Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the triage performance, clinical efficacy and user perceived utility of a prototype dental SC, Toothbuddy , in assessing unscheduled dental visits in Singapore. Methods A 5-month pilot trial was conducted for all unscheduled dental attendees to military dental facilities in Singapore between January to May 2023. The accuracy of Toothbuddy to tele-triage the dental conditions into three categories (Routine, Urgent, and Emergency) was determined. Based on the patient-reported symptoms input into Toothbuddy , clinical recommendations were provided for the categories Routine, Urgent and Emergency in the form of advice. Thereafter, all dental attendees were clinically assessed to determine the definitive category. Finally, a user questionnaire asked about the application’s functionality, utility, and user’s satisfaction. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were undertaken. Results During the period of study, there were 588 unscheduled dental visits who presented with clinical concerns without any prior appointments. Out of these cases, 275 (46.8%) were evaluated to be routine dental conditions where treatment can be delayed or self-managed, 243 (41.3%) required urgent dental care and 60 (10.2%) required emergency dental intervention. The accuracy of Toothbuddy symptom checker in categorizing the correct intervention was 79.6% (468 out of 588 cases). The sensitivity and specificity in categorizing routine vs non-routine conditions was 94.5% (95% CI: 92.0-97.1) and 74.0% (95% CI: 68.8-79.2). The app was generally well-received and rated highly across its user interface, content, and user sentiments. Conclusion Preliminary data suggest that Toothbuddy can perform accurate dental self-assessment for a suitable range of common dental concerns as a promising platform for virtual dental advice on spontaneous dental issues. External validation, further user-enhancements and features are recommended to expand Toothbuddy for wider public use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
LIM et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: