Dental Trauma First-Aid Knowledge and Attitudes of Physical Education Teachers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature with Meta-Regressions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it