Patients who fill out a written medical history form before dental treatment disclose more about their health than patients whose histories are taken verbally by a clinician, according to a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 2,800 patient records from Kocaeli University Faculty of Dentistry. The study, published in BMC Primary Care, compared patient self-reported written anamnesis, abbreviated PSWA, with clinician-mediated verbal anamnesis, or CMVA, and found that overall disease prevalence was 44.9 percent in the written-form cohort versus 34.1 percent in the verbally questioned cohort.
The researchers drew the two datasets from different years and sources. The verbal anamnesis records came from the hospital information management system for 2024, while the written forms had been collected in 2018 from previously used questionnaires. Age- and sex-matched cohorts of 1,400 patients each were assembled, one from each database, so that the two groups were comparable on basic demographics. In addition to descriptive statistics, the team used a multivariate binary logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of systemic disease disclosure.
Major systemic conditions such as hypertension and diabetes appeared at similar rates in both groups, suggesting that clinicians do capture the headline diagnoses that matter most for immediate perioperative risk. The divergence emerged with secondary conditions. Anemia was reported by 16.2 percent of the written-form cohort but only 3.0 percent of the verbal cohort, a difference the authors report as statistically significant at p < 0.001. Gastrointestinal diseases showed the same pattern, at 11.4 percent versus 3.3 percent, also with p < 0.001.
The regression analysis quantified the effect of the data-collection method itself. After adjusting for demographic variables, the written method increased the likelihood of disease disclosure with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.66, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 1.41 to 1.96 and p < 0.001. In practical terms, patients completing a structured written questionnaire had roughly two-thirds higher odds of having a systemic condition on record than matched patients whose history was elicited verbally, independent of age and sex.
Beyond simple prevalence, examination of the written forms revealed higher rates of overall multimorbidity, meaning patients with several coexisting conditions, and clinically relevant specific comorbidity patterns that the verbal route missed. The gap between the two methods was most pronounced in patients under 40 years of age, a group in whom clinicians may perceive less need for exhaustive history-taking and in whom chronic secondary conditions are easily overlooked during a brief verbal exchange.
The authors conclude that relying solely on clinician-mediated verbal anamnesis may contribute to underreporting of secondary chronic conditions and the pharmacological risks associated with them. Undisclosed conditions carry consequences for dental care: medications and disease states can interact with local anesthetics, vasoconstrictors, antibiotics and hemostasis, so a missing diagnosis in the record is a latent safety hazard rather than a mere documentation gap. The study frames written questionnaires as a supplement to, not a replacement for, the verbal approach that remains widely used in dental practice.
Methodologically, the design has limits that shape how the findings should be read. This was a retrospective, single-institution analysis comparing records from two different years, 2018 for the written forms and 2024 for the verbal records, rather than a randomized comparison within the same patients. The authors describe the cohorts as age- and sex-matched, but other differences between the eras and populations cannot be excluded, and the data reflect what was recorded in the archives rather than a prospective test of disclosure accuracy. The published version is an early-access, peer-reviewed accepted manuscript carrying a permanent DOI, subject to further edits before the final Version of Record.
Even with those caveats, the direction of the result is consistent with the study’s stated aim: to analyze reporting completeness of the two anamnesis methods for systemic diseases and related comorbidity patterns. The authors suggest that adopting a standardized written questionnaire, or a hybrid protocol incorporating both methods, could provide a more reliable assessment of the reported burden of systemic disease and enhance patient safety. For dental practices weighing how to structure their intake process, the data indicate that a structured written form surfaces conditions that a verbal interview alone leaves off the chart, particularly anemia and gastrointestinal disease, and particularly in younger adults.
Subject of Research: Comparison of patient-completed written versus clinician-mediated verbal medical history taking in dental practice
Article Title: An analysis of patient-completed written versus clinician-mediated verbal anamnesis in dental practice: a retrospective cross-sectional study
Article References: Baysal, O., Kuran, A., Seki, U., & Sinanoglu, E. A. (2026). An analysis of patient-completed written versus clinician-mediated verbal anamnesis in dental practice: a retrospective cross-sectional study. BMC Primary Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-026-03611-z
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s12875-026-03611-z
Keywords: dental anamnesis, medical history, patient safety, multimorbidity, anemia, gastrointestinal disease, cross-sectional study, dental practice, comorbidity, health records, questionnaire, risk management
News Source: Ophelia Keating. (October 30, 2026). Written medical histories reveal more conditions than verbal questioning in dental records. Scienmag.
