Pooled risk difference across 11 student‐clinic studies is 0.43 but with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 93%)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The overall pooled risk difference of 0.43 [95% CI: 0.40, 0.46] indicates a significantly higher likelihood of successful treatment, though study outcomes were highly heterogeneous. → Chien 2025 q3 i? Individual study risk differences ranged from 0.12 (da Rocha et al., 2022) to 0.76 (Cunha et al., 2020), with Chi² = 135.30, p < .00001 and I² = 93%. → Chien 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Chien 2025¶

Chien, P.Y.‐H., Hosseinpour, S., Peters, O.A. & Peters, C.I. (2025). Outcomes of root canal treatment performed by undergraduate students: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Endodontic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.14246

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta‐analytic pooling across the 11 included studies displayed in Figure 2, reporting the overall effect as "a significantly higher likelihood of a successful treatment outcome" with the printed confidence interval; no standardized effect size is given.

"The overall pooled risk difference is 0.43 [95% CI: 0.40, 0.46], indicating a significantly higher likelihood of a successful treatment outcome."

Chien 2025 (2)¶

Chien, P.Y.‐H., Hosseinpour, S., Peters, O.A. & Peters, C.I. (2025). Outcomes of root canal treatment performed by undergraduate students: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Endodontic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.14246

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Heterogeneity analysis of the same forest plot (Figure 2), with the review attributing variability to "differences in methodology, patient factors or treatment protocols". Despite this, the overall effect was significant (Z = 30.91, p < .00001).

"The forest plot reveals considerable heterogeneity (Chi2 = 135.30, p < .00001; I 2 = 93%), suggesting variability in study outcomes, possibly influenced by differences in methodology, patient factors or treatment protocols."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students report more confidence and less anxiety when supervised by clinicians experienced in endodontics (review‐attributed) — related
• Only 4 of 11 studies (36.4%) of student root canal treatment had low risk of bias — related
• All three ECE modalities show significant positive effects, with real clinical interactions showing the largest pooled effect — related
• Structured clinical performance shows the largest pooled signal (SMD 3.39) but rests on a very small evidence base — related
• Student root canal treatment success is lower in teeth with preoperative periapical radiolucencies (56.3%) than without (86.8%) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Anterior and pre‐molar teeth show higher student treatment success rates (82.2% and 79.4%) than molars (68.7%) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Root canal treatment by undergraduate students succeeds more often in teeth with vital pulps (87.8%) than necrotic pulps (65.6%) — related