Efficacy of dip slide test for mutans streptococci in caries risk assessment

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a dip slide test for mutans streptococci in caries risk assessment, when the microbiological results were compared to well-defined clinical criteria (DCC) for caries risk, clinically measured through high and low caries activity. Eighty-one volunteers from the 6(th) to 8(th) grades from public schools of Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, were evaluated for dental caries. All free smooth surfaces were evaluated to check whether or not there were white spots. Based on the subjects' caries experience, a calibrated clinician divided them into groups of high and low caries activity. The subjects were submitted to a salivary test (CARITEST SM (R)) from the same batch number. Kappa statistics (kappa) were applied to verify the reproducibility of the simplified test, checked through interexaminer agreement when the results were classified by independent and blind means. The microbiological results were validated according to expressions of sensitivity and specificity. A moderate agreement was verified as the results were classified according to 6 scores (kappa =0.55), and the agreement was substantial when the results were classified according to high and low microbiological count (kappa =0.78). The sensitivity and specificity values were 0.59 and 0.85, respectively, showing that the test was more specific than sensitive, and could thus better identify the low caries risk subjects

Primary Care Research Priorities in Low Back Pain An Update

Study Design. Survey report. Objective. To reassess an existing list of research priorities in primary care low back pain (LBP) and to develop a new research agenda. Summary of Background Data. Primary care LBP researchers developed an agenda of research priorities in 1997 at an international conference. In 2009, a survey was conducted to re-evaluate the 1997 research priorities and to develop a new research agenda. Methods. Two-phase, Internet-based survey of participants in one of the LBP primary care research fora. The first phase collected information on importance, feasibility, and progress for the 1997 priorities; during this phase, the respondents were also asked to list the 5 most important current primary care-relevant LBP research questions. The second phase ranked these current research priorities. Results. A total of 179 persons responded to the first phase, representing 30% of those surveyed. Rankings of the 1997 priorities were somewhat similar compared with 2009, although research on beliefs and expectations and improving the quality of LBP research became more important, and research on guidelines and psychosocial interventions became less important. Organizing more effective primary care for LBP, implementing best practices, and translating research to practice were ranked higher com Conclusion. Changes in research priorities seem to reflect recent advances, new opportunities, and limitations in our ability to improve care