strobe presentation.pptx.

1. Effects of child characteristics
and dental history on dental
fear: cross-sectional study
Mohammad A. Alshoraim1 , Azza A. El-Housseiny2,3, Najat M. Farsi2 ,
Osama M. Felemban2*, Najlaa M. Alamoudi2 and Amani A. Alandejani4
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0496-4
1
Presented by:
Haya Tauqeer
3rd semester MPH
IM.Sciences Peshawar.

2. Overall Summary
• Objectives
• Well define objectives
• The aim of the study was to assess dental fear among 12–15 years old Arabic speaking
children in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and its relation to demographic variables, previous
dental experience, and child behavior.
• Results:
• Bivariate analysis showed that younger children, girls, and public-school students,
Children who showed poor behavior during dental examination were significantly more
fearful than older children, boys, and private school children, respectively
• Dental caries showed no significant association with DF.
• This study confirms that DF is low among 12–15 years old Arabic speaking children in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
2

3. Title & Abstract
• Title:
• Study Design is Clear.
• Scope of the study is not mentioned( its not clear where the study has been
conducted)
3

4. Continue
• Abstract: is structured.
• Background, objectives, Study Design, settings, Results and conclusions are
given
• Duration and sample size is mentioned.
• Dental fear and contributing factors, assessment tools are mentioned.
• Limitations of the study are not addressed
• Key words are mentioned.
4

5. Abstract
• In conclusion portion a statement: This study confirms that DF is low among
12–15 years old Arabic speaking children in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
They did defend it in a discussion section.
5

6. 6

7. Introduction
• Background and Rationale:
• Generally appropriate with reference to the previous study.
• Variables are well-defined
• Objectives:
• As mentioned in the abstract, objectives are also well specified in the
introduction
• Limitations are not given.
7

8. Methods
• Study Design is stated clearly.
• Participants:
• Population frame is given
• Inclusion criteria was given
• Exclusion criteria was not discussed separately as its understood.
• Sampling method is mentioned i.e. multistage stratified random sampling
• Sample size calculated with relevance to prevalence taken from previous
studies.
• Ethically approved
• Inform consent was present.
• In methodology section reason for the selection of this age group is not
mentioned.
8

9. Methods
• Data Collection
• Two questionnaire each for parents and children
• Parents questionnaire adopted from previous literature,
• Second questionnaire was an Arabic version of CFSS-DS having 15 items
scaled ranging from 1 to 5, highly reliable in term of both test retest reliability
and internal consistency and shows good criterion validity.
9

10. CONTINUE
• 1st Questionnaire was distributed and collected after 5 months of
period (were the questionnaire preserved safe during the time
period?)
• Questionnaire were self reported and filled during school hour, is
there any chance of copy pasting among school peers?
• Didn’t discussed any Bias.
10

11. Methods
• Study settings
• Relevant dates i.e. starting and end dates are mentioned.
• Location is mentioned
• Steps and follow-up for the data collection are mentioned considering
informed consent for each questionnaire.
• Instruments and devices used are mentioned
• According to the study only informed consent signed questionnaire were
approved for next phase of study “ There is no discussion regarding how
much of the students were promoted to next phase of study, how much were
assessed and how much were rejected due to incomplete parent consent? In
study settings portion.
11

12. Methods
• Statistical Methods:
• Detail analysis have been provided
• Bias is not addressed in methods.
• Association between variables were analyzed by applying different tests were
mentioned.
• Analysis details have been provided
• Multiple linear regression analysis was used to evaluate significant predictors
of dental fear level while controlling for potential confounders.
12

13. Results
• Participants
• Refusal rate and participants mentioned.
• Reasons for non-participation are not given (19 children refused participation, 31
were absent)
• In methodology population frame mentioned was 115689. sample size calculated
was 1520, but in results they did mentioned to distribute questionnaire among
2000 children's.
13

14. Continue
• Descriptive Data:
• Results are properly interpreted with confidence interval for both the
questionnaire.
• All variables and controlling confounders are properly discussed in results.
• Multiple linear regression model was used to evaluate the association of the
variables while controlling for confounders.
14

15. Data regarding variables are missing:
like; Females have a score of dental fear of 5.36
higher than males after controlling for
confounders.
15

16. Discussion
• Key Results:
• Summary of results in discussion section is well explained
16

17. Continue
• Limitations:
• Part of the discussion mentioning limitations are well discussed.
• Preventing recall bias to occur is discussed
• Generalizability:
• Concerns about the strength and External Validity of the study have been
addressed appropriately
17

18. Continue
• Conclusion:
• Study ended with a set of recommendations
• In short:
• Potentially a good study, well planned and done with much effort at real data
collection.
18

19. 19