Agbaje J O, Lesaffre E, Declerck D
Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
Community Dent Health. 2012 Mar;29(1):14-9.
To review aspects of methods for assessing caries experience (CE) in epidemiological surveys.
A search of English language literature published between January 2000 and December 2008 was undertaken using 'epidemiology', 'dental caries' and 'assessment' as search terms. Information on criteria for CE assessment, materials and settings, diagnostic threshold, training of examiners and validation of the screening results was extracted from the reports.
Eighty-nine reports met the inclusion criteria. In 9 of the reports (10%) no reference was made to existing standardisation criteria for assessment of CE. Light condition applied (60 reports, 67%) and the use of a probe (60 reports, 67%) were frequently reported. Most reports mentioned that training and calibration of examiners took place, but the outcome of reliability checks were often not presented (48 reports, 54%). Only 28 of the reports (32%) specified that cleaning took place before the examination. Journals with Impact Factor (IF) provided specific information on methods more frequently than journals without. The WHO Basic Methods for Oral Health Surveys were most often applied (52 surveys, 58%). However, deviations from the original description were found especially for measurement and reporting of reliability measurement (24, 46% and 29, 56% respectively), type of probe used (27, 52%) and light condition (16, 31%). All of these hamper the (external) validity of the obtained results.
There is a clear need for improvement of the reporting and application of methods for assessing CE in epidemiological surveys. A check-list of aspects of methods to be included in reports of surveys assessing CE is proposed by the authors.
回顾在流行病学调查中评估龋病经验（CE）的方法的各个方面。
以“流行病学”“龋齿”和“评估”作为检索词，对2000年1月至2008年12月期间发表的英文文献进行检索。从报告中提取有关CE评估标准、材料和环境、诊断阈值、检查者培训以及筛查结果验证的信息。
89篇报告符合纳入标准。其中9篇报告（10%）未提及现有的CE评估标准化标准。经常报告的有光照条件（60篇报告，67%）和探针的使用（60篇报告，67%）。大多数报告提到对检查者进行了培训和校准，但可靠性检查的结果往往未呈现（48篇报告，54%）。只有28篇报告（32%）明确说明在检查前进行了清洁。有影响因子（IF）的期刊比没有影响因子的期刊更频繁地提供有关方法的具体信息。最常应用的是《世界卫生组织口腔健康调查基本方法》（52项调查，58%）。然而，发现与原始描述存在偏差，尤其是在可靠性测量的测量和报告方面（分别为24项，46%和29项，56%）、使用的探针类型（27项，52%）和光照条件（16项，31%）。所有这些都妨碍了所获结果的（外部）有效性。
在流行病学调查中，评估CE的方法的报告和应用显然需要改进。作者提出了一份在评估CE的调查的报告中应包含的方法方面的清单。
