Critical Appraisal

2. Oral Health Care Status: Relationship to
nutrient and food intake among 80 year
old Japanese adults

3.  To test whether the posterior occluding pairs have a significant
effect on the nutritional status of the 80 year old Japanese adults.
 Poor oral health can have a negative effect on nutrition.
 Tooth loss has been associated with impaired chewing ability and
changes in food preferences
 Individuals who are either edentulous or have a fewer POP’s
(posterior occluding pairs) prefer soft easily chewable food with low
density which counts for their lower energy levels and clinically
resulting in their nutritional deficiencies.
 Cross-sectional studies were carried out on the Nigata citizens
aged to years in the year 1998.
 The total population of 70 year old individual was 4542 and all of
them were requested to participate, but the current data was
collected only from 353 participants aged 80 years old(year 2008).

5. POSITIVES
 The title is relevant to the article.
 It is precise as it discusses a specific age group in a
specific country i.e. 80 years old Japanese.
NEGATIVES
 The title is self explanatory and therefore there is no
drawback in it.

6. Is the title relevant to the topic? YES
Is the title clear, brief and precise? YES

7. POSITIVES
 Objectives, aims,
methods and
conclusion properly
discussed
 The overall article is
easily perceived.
 Proper layout
NEGATIVES
 Results not easy to
comprehend.

8. Relevant to the literature review? YES
Realistic? YES

9. POSITIVES
 Covers the entire topic.
 Appropriate length
 It is a cross sectional study.
 Small references given regarding previous studies carried
out on this topic
 clearly gives us an idea that fewer natural POP's or ill
fitting dentures result in nutritional deficiencies
 Previous studies in this area conclude that nutritional
deficiencies might result by either the fewer POP’s or the
dietary intake quality of the individuals.

10. NEGATIVES
 Further studies are needed on some of the
researches such as different genetic backgrounds
and lifestyles effecting the oral health status.
 A few points were stated in the article which did not
link to the topic (Gap)

11. Does it cover the topic? YES
Hierarchy of Evidence? YES
Critical analysis of previous work in this area discussed (literature review)? NO
Is it of an appropriate length? YES
Gaps in the research identified? YES

12. POSITIVES
 Study design appropriate
 Methods adequately discussed.
 Participants inclusion/exclusion criteria mentioned
 Reliable and valid measures
 The study was conducted according to the guidelines
laid down in the Helsinki Declaration.
 Participants who had edentulous prosthesis were
handed out a questionnaire to clear the query relating
quality and fit of the denture.

13.  Division into groups(according to dentition) made it
easier to analyze their nutrition intake.

14. NEGATIVES
 Results were obtained by examining very less people
(332 participants) from a huge population. (total
population 4542)
 A small number of people were accommodated for the
research study. (only 600)
 Certain aspects of oral health that can effect nutrition
were not stated.

15. Is the study design appropriate for this research? YES
Have the methods been described adequately? YES
Was the number of participants appropriate for the research work? NO
Is it stated how the participants were invited/selected for the research work? YES
Were there any incentives provided to the participants for the research work? NO
Were the measures taken valid/ reliable? YES
Any extra measures taken for the research work? NO

16. POSITIVES
 All the data has been accounted for
 It has been reported appropriately
 Content is valid and the data is relevant
 statistical studies included
 This model showed significant association of oral health
status with nutritional deficiencies.
 accurately explained with tables and figures

17. NEGATIVES
 Results not easy to comprehend
 No diagrammatic illustrations
 Too many variables.

18. Has all the data been accounted for? YES
Has the data been reported appropriately? YES
Are there any Statistical tests? NO
Is the Data interpretation satisfactory? YES
Are there any tables and figures provided to prove the data correct? YES
Is the data valid in the tables? YES
Are the layouts understandable? NO

20. POSITIVES
 It is not a summary of the results
 Conclusion in line with the results
NEGATIVES
 No future recommendations mentioned
 Conclusion is not reported properly

21. Are the conclusions in line with the results? YES
Are the conclusions a summary of the results? NO
Were there any Future recommendations mentioned? NO

22. POSITIVES
 Referring style consistent
 Appropriately referred
NEGATIVES
 No drawbacks