Department of Paediatric Dentistry, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK.
Br Dent J. 2012 Mar 9;212(5):219-22. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.174.
To review paediatric dental anxiety measures (DAMs) and assess the statistical methods used for validation and their clinical implications.
A search of four computerised databases between 1960 and January 2011 associated with DAMs, using pre-specified search terms, to assess the method of validation including the reliability as intra-observer agreement 'repeatability or stability' and inter-observer agreement 'reproducibility' and all types of validity.
Fourteen paediatric DAMs were predominantly validated in schools and not in the clinical setting while five of the DAMs were not validated at all. The DAMs that were validated were done so against other paediatric DAMs which may not have been validated previously. Reliability was not assessed in four of the DAMs. However, all of the validated studies assessed reliability which was usually 'good' or 'acceptable'. None of the current DAMs used a formal sample size technique. Diversity was seen between the studies ranging from a few simple pictograms to lists of questions reported by either the individual or an observer.
To date there is no scale that can be considered as a gold standard, and there is a need to further develop an anxiety scale with a cognitive component for children and adolescents.
回顾儿科牙科焦虑量表（DAMs），评估用于验证的统计方法及其临床意义。
1960 年至 2011 年 1 月期间，使用预定的检索词，在四个计算机数据库中搜索与 DAM 相关的内容，以评估验证方法，包括观察者内一致性的可靠性（可重复性或稳定性）和观察者间一致性的可靠性（再现性）以及所有类型的有效性。
14 种儿科 DAM 主要在学校而不是在临床环境中进行验证，而其中 5 种 DAM 根本没有进行验证。已验证的 DAM 是针对其他以前可能未经过验证的儿科 DAM 进行的。有 4 个 DAM 没有评估可靠性。但是，所有经过验证的研究都评估了可靠性，通常为“良好”或“可接受”。目前尚无 DAM 使用正式的样本量技术。研究之间存在差异，从几个简单的象形图到个人或观察者报告的问题列表不等。
迄今为止，尚无可以被认为是金标准的量表，因此需要进一步开发一种具有认知成分的针对儿童和青少年的焦虑量表。
