Dental Trauma First-Aid Knowledge and Attitudes of Physical Education Teachers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature with Meta-Regressions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of the present review is to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes of physical education (PE) teachers concerning dental trauma first-aid through a systematic appraisal of the literature, meta-analysis and meta-regressions. The entire content of PubMed and ISI/Web of Science was mined. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies were studies evaluating dental trauma first-aid knowledge and/or attitudes and/or the effectiveness of mouthguards use by PE teachers. Articles written in any language and published or accepted by peer-reviewed journals were considered. Methodological quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Downs and Black instrument. Of 15 selected articles, three were of strong quality, three were moderate, and the remaining nine were rated as weak. The majority of studies showed that PE teachers had an inadequate knowledge of the initial management of dental trauma. Specifically, there was a lack of knowledge concerning an appropriate washing and transporting medium and the extra-alveolar period of an avulsed tooth. Due to the inadequate knowledge of PE teachers regarding dental trauma management, specific education should be added to PE classes to improve the emergency treatment of dental injuries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".