A Systematic Review of Oral Assessment Instruments
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief Background: Observing and recording the signs and symptoms of oral mucositis are an important part of oral care, essential to the prevention and treatment of mucositis. Structured oral assessment enables a more informed and accurate identification of signs and symptoms and will enable early and individualized interventions. Objective: A United Kingdom-based mouth-care group conducted a systematic review of the published literature through to March 2004 and repeated in 2008. The goal of this review was to identify and evaluate the range of instruments used to assess oral mucositis to recommend in evidence-based guidelines the "best" instrument to use in the field of children's and young people's cancer care. Methods: Search sources included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies were selected using defined criteria and reviewed by 3 pairs of group members. Results: Fifty-four individual oral assessment instruments were identified with only 15 reporting evidence of reliability and validity testing. Only 3 articles reported on oral assessment exclusively in our population. Conclusions: The guidelines recommend only 1 assessment instrument, the Oral Assessment Guide, or adaptations of this instrument, to be used in clinical practice. Five factors influenced this recommendation: purpose of assessment, population, outcomes assessed, and quality of the instrument and ease of use. Implications for Practice: The Oral Assessment Guide has been consistently judged to be user-friendly and appropriate for everyday clinical practice with both adults and children, as well as a useful research tool. Background: Observing and recording the signs and symptoms of oral mucositis are an important part of oral care, essential to the prevention and treatment of mucositis. Structured oral assessment enables a more informed and accurate identification of signs and symptoms and will enable early and individualized interventions. Objective: A United Kingdom-based mouth-care group conducted a systematic review of the published literature through to March 2004 and repeated in 2008. The goal of this review was to identify and evaluate the range of instruments used to assess oral mucositis to recommend in evidence-based guidelines the "best" instrument to use in the field of children's and young people's cancer care. Methods: Search sources included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies were selected using defined criteria and reviewed by 3 pairs of group members. Results: Fifty-four individual oral assessment instruments were identified with only 15 reporting evidence of reliability and validity testing. Only 3 articles reported on oral assessment exclusively in our population. Conclusions: The guidelines recommend only 1 assessment instrument, the Oral Assessment Guide, or adaptations of this instrument, to be used in clinical practice. Five factors influenced this recommendation: purpose of assessment, population, outcomes assessed, and quality of the instrument and ease of use. Implications for Practice: The Oral Assessment Guide has been consistently judged to be user-friendly and appropriate for everyday clinical practice with both adults and children, as well as a useful research tool.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».