Core outcome set development identifies key outcomes for dental behaviour support in diverse populations, indicating significant implications for research and practice.
Objectives To develop a Core Outcome Set suitable for adults and children for use in studies of Dental Behaviour Support (DBS) techniques, including non‐pharmacological DBS, sedation and General Anaesthesia research. Methods Two systematic reviews generated a preliminary list of candidate outcomes that were shared with Key Stakeholders (KSG) and Public Patient Involvement (PPI) groups, who shortlisted outcomes for further exploration. Patients, carers, clinicians, and researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi panel. A modified e‐Delphi was used to generate prioritisation and consensus across outcomes. A subsequent series of consensus meetings with panellists, patient groups and professional stakeholder groups determined the final outcomes within the COS. Results Twenty‐three candidate outcomes were rated by 88 panellists in Round 1. The attrition rate between Rounds 1 and 3 was 21.6%. Thirty‐four to 32 panellists attended the consensus meetings. The BeSiDe core outcome set for Dental Behaviour Support consisted of nine outcomes: acceptability, adverse effect, anxiety, behavioural response, cost, pain, therapeutic alliance, time and treatment completion . An additional subset of three core outcomes for use in pharmacological DBS studies was agreed upon: recovery, sedation effect and physiological monitoring . Each outcome was presented with a plain‐language label and description to support consistent interpretation across stakeholders. Conclusions A core outcome set to be used across all DBS studies was produced covering both adults and children, with supplementary additional outcomes available to use in studies exploring only pharmacological DBS approaches. The list is for use in research, though there is obvious transferability to clinical practice. Trial Registration COMET Initiative database (Study ID: 2101), registered September 2022
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Phadraig et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: