Table 2.

Study results describing the number of measures, the measure titles and the characteristics of the publications

Authors (year)	Number of measures		Reported tested clinimetric properties by the authors of the publications
Dental Quality Alliance (DQA): Herndon et al (2015a)22; Herndon et al (2015b)26; American Dental Association (2016)23; American Dental Association (2018)24; Hunt & Ohja (2017)25	2016: Total: 11 Outcome: 0 Process: 9 Structure: 2	Updated measures 2018a Total: 24 Outcome: 0 Process: 23 Structure: 1	Importance, feasibility, reliability and validity were tested. For validity, the project reported on face validity, convergent validity and known‐group validation. For the reliability, detailed algorithms outlining how to calculate each measure were developed. Also, a user guide was developed for the consistency in implementation. One measure was not feasible due to data limitations (measure 11)
Achmea Oral Health Project: Hummel et al (2017)28; Projectteam mondzorg (2015)29	Total: 4 Outcome: 3 Process: 1 Structure: 0		Feasibility, face validity Discriminative validity and responsiveness were reported
European Global Oral Health Indicators Development (EGOHID) I: Bourgeois et al (2008)30; Ottolenghi et al (2007)31 and EGOHID catalogue (2005)32	Total: 40 Outcome: 24 Process: 10 Structure: 6		Validity, objectivity, sensitivity and specificity reported as being important in the catalogue and both articles. However, it has not been mentioned further how they assessed these characteristics during the development process. Implementation and validity testing has been planned for EGOHID phase II
Dental Quality and Outcomes Framework (DQOF): Department of Health (2011)33; Department of Health (2016)34	DQOF for 2016‐2017 Total: 13 Outcome: 10 Process: 3 Structure: 0		None
National Oral Health Surveillance System (NOHSS): Malvitz et al (2009)35; Chattopadhyay et al (2008)37; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2015)36	Updated NOHSS measures from 2015 report Total: 35 Outcome: 24 Process: 9 Structure: 2		None
Nordic Project: National Institute for Health and Welfare (2010)38; Ekornrud & Wilburg (2013)39	2010 Total: 12 Outcome: 5 Process: 3 Structure:4		The 2010 document mentioned that a measure should be valid, reliable and relevant; however, no additional information was provided
Baâdoudi et al (2017)5	Total: 63 Outcome: 15 Process: 46 Structure: 2		Validity testing has been planned for the advocate field studies
Mattila et al (2002)40	Total: 5 Outcome: 3 Process: 0 Structure: 2		None
Mangione‐Smith et al (2010)41	Total: 2 Outcome: 0 Process: 1 Structure: 1		Committee members evaluated the feasibility, validity, reliability and importance of the measures in a Delphi method based on available scientific evidence and the likelihood of available, reliable data sources
Hussein et al (2017)42	Total: 3 Outcome: 0 Process: 3 Structure: 0		The publication only described the provided descriptive frequency information measures
Bhardwaj et al (2016)43	Total: 1 Outcome: 0 Process: 1 Structure: 0		Feasibility and performance of the measure were tested. The automated query was compared with manual chart reviews and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated
Neumann et al (2017)44	Total: 1 (and 1 DQA measure) Outcome: 0 Process: 1 (and 1 DQA measure) Structure: 0		Performance and validation of the automated query was evaluated by comparing the query with manual chart reviews, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated

^aThe DQA measures are updated each year.