Search

Objectives: To assess the impact on survival of the total time interval since the first bodily change (sign/symptom) until the start of treatment in symptomatic oral cancer patients., Methods: Retrospective, hospital-based study designed within the "Aarhus Statement" conceptual framework, using the overall interval to treatment of 183 oral cancer patients to analyse their survival rates., Results: Overall time interval (T5): 107.1 ± 85.2 days. Overall survival rate: 58.4 (CI: 51.3-66.4%). Recurrence time (median): 724 days (IQR, 223-2963.5). Median survival time: 1744 days (IQR, 479.5-3438). Overall delay (T5) and mortality showed a U-shaped association, where patients with short (24.0-55.5 days) and long T5 intervals (127.5-420 days) had higher mortality than those with medium T5 intervals (55.5-127.5 days)., Conclusion: There is a non-monotonic association between time interval and mortality. Higher mortality rates are linked to shorter and longer time intervals. This may induce underestimation of the association when time intervals are considered dichotomously., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In this study, the authors assessed the readability of online endodontic information in English and Spanish., Methods: The authors performed a systematic search in Google in May 2016. Search queries were "root canal treatment" and "¿Qué es una endodoncia?" without limits or filters. The authors assessed English readability by using Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau index, automated readability index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index. The authors calculated readability for Spanish by using the Fernández-Huerta index and INFLESZ (Ines-Barrio)., Results: The authors assessed the first 100 consecutive sites identified with each search strategy and selected 117 sites. Readability scores for English-language sites were in the category of normal to read, easily understood by 13- through 15-year-old students (Flesch Reading Ease Score, 63, interquartile range (IQR) [53.9-66.2]; Gunning Fog Index, 10.4, IQR [8.8-12]; Coleman-Liau index, 12.5, IQR [11.6-13.3]; and automated readability index, 8.6, IQR [6.7-9.8]). SMOG results led to the estimation that only 7 years of education would be needed to understand these contents (SMOG, 7.6, IQR [6.5-8.8]). Spanish-language sites had a readability index normal for an adult, equivalent to a seventh or eighth school year (Fernandez-Huerta, 62.3, IQR [59.7-66.6]; INFLESZ, 57.5, IQR [55.1-62.1]). The authors found that 36.6% of English-language sites had some degree of difficulty for readers to understand their contents, whereas 23% of Spanish-language sites had some degree of difficulty (14.46; 95% confidence interval, -3.16 to 30.08)., Conclusions: Spanish- and English-language electronic health information about endodontic treatment is acceptable to read, but-particularly for English-language sites-there is an important proportion of sites scoring difficulty levels well above the recommendations., Practical Implications: The internet is a useful tool for communicating with patients, but available endodontic information is difficult for laypeople to understand. Endodontists should produce relevant materials in plain language to overcome this problem., (Copyright © 2018 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the accessibility to editorial information in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery journals., Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study using the WOS-Web of Science database in three categories: "Surgery," "Otorhinolaryngology," and "Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine" was designed. Journals were filtered by title and classified under three headings: OMFS specialty; OMFS subspecialty and related sciences; and multidisciplinary journals. Specialty scope (OMFS vs. other); impact factor; path for the manuscript; blinding policy; accessibility to reviewers' criteria; and percentage of acceptance., Results: Only 46 of 330 journals met the inclusion criteria. All OMFS journals provided comprehensive information about the review process, compared to 5 of 27 (18.5%) of Oral Surgery and related sciences periodicals. Most specialty journals do not inform about the blind review mode used (20 of 33; 60.6%). Generally, information about the reviewers' assessment criteria is scarce, but is available from all OMFS journals, which also state the percentage of manuscript acceptance (100% vs. 14.8%)., Conclusions: OMFS JCR journals provide adequate information about their editorial process in terms of path for the manuscript, accessibility to reviewers' criteria, and percentage of acceptance. Additional efforts are needed to increase accessibility to information about blinding policy and average time from submission to acceptance., (Copyright © 2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)