Oral health in systemic sclerosis: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Limited research on oral health in systematic sclerosis poses a significant challenge for people with systematic sclerosis and health care professionals. We conducted a scoping review to map existing research on oral health-related quality of life in systematic sclerosis across domains including (1) oral manifestations or symptoms, (2) functional consequences, (3) psychosocial aspects, (4) associated patient factors and (5) self-care and management considerations. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases to 10 March 2023 for studies on oral health in people with systematic sclerosis. Study data were mapped into pre-specified domains of oral health-related quality of life, subtopics and types of research and reported in tabular form. Results: Of 1460 unique studies reviewed, 91 were eligible and included in the scoping review; of these, 69 (76%) were published as full-text versions, 72 (79%) were from Europe or North America, and 63 (69%) included ⩽50 participants. Only 1 study had >200 participants (N = 382). By domains, 85 (93%) studies reported aspects of oral manifestations or symptoms, with the most common subtopics being oral opening and mandibular function, sicca, periodontitis and soft tissue changes and pathology; 36 (40%) studies provided information on associated patient factors, 23 (25%) on self-care and management, 19 (21%) on psychosocial aspects and 6 (7%) on functional consequences. No studies related to interventions included >50 participants. Conclusion: Most studies on oral health in systematic sclerosis report on manifestations or symptoms, and there are relatively few studies on other important domains. Most studies have been conducted with small samples. Updated systematic reviews should evaluate the quality of existing evidence in domains where enough studies have been done. Large, well-conducted primary studies are needed to address knowledge gaps across domains, including studies that test approaches for supporting oral self-care, improving routine professional care and addressing major disability-causing manifestations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".