Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Differences in effect estimates between early primary trials included in a meta-analysis and the pooled estimate of meta-analysis might indicate potential novelty bias. The objective of this study was to assess the presence of novelty bias in a sample of studies published in periodontology and implant dentistry. On August 7, 2020, we searched the PubMed database for meta-analyses of clinical studies published between August 2015 and August 2020. Meta-analyses with at least 4 primary studies were selected for assessment. We fitted logistic regression models using trial characteristics as predictors to assess the association between these characteristics and 1) the odds of the first trial's estimate to be included in the meta-analysis confidence interval (CI) and 2) the odds of overlap between the first trial's CI and the meta-analysis prediction interval (PI). Ninety-two meta-analyses provided data for assessment. In absolute values, 70% of the meta-analyses have a pooled estimate smaller than the corresponding estimate of the first trial, although there was overlap of the CI of estimates from the first trial and the meta-analysis in 87% of the cases. This is probably due to the small number of trials in most meta-analyses and the subsequently large uncertainty associated with the pooled effect estimate. As the number of trials in the meta-analysis increased, the odds of the treatment effect estimate of the first trial to be included in the meta-analysis CI decreased by 15% for every additional trial (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.96). Meta-analytic effect estimates appear to be more conservative than those from the first trial in the meta-analysis. Our findings show evidence of novelty bias in periodontology and implant dentistry; therefore, clinicians should be aware of the risk of making decisions based on the information reported in new trials because of the risk of exaggerated estimates in these trials.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The objective of this study was to assess methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016 for relevant studies. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 91 studies were included in the analysis. Most reviews inadequately reported PRISMA items regarding study protocol, search strategy and bias and AMSTAR items regarding protocol, publication bias and funding. Systematic reviews published in a plastics journal, or which included more authors, were associated with higher AMSTAR scores. A large proportion of systematic reviews within hand and wrist pathology literature score poorly with validated methodological assessment tools, which may affect the reliability of their conclusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Dental treatment planning is usually expected to take account of the individual patient's clinical risks and benefits. Ideally, the therapeutic choice for each and every patient should be based on adequate clinical diagnostics and risk assessment that facilitates stabilization of the patient's clinical condition as well as prevents further oral impairment. However, identification of the most suitable approach tends to become more and more challenging as the number of therapeutic alternatives continues to increase due to medical innovation. In this study, the challenge of decision making in modern dentistry is illustrated using the example of bounded edentulous spaces. Many therapeutic alternatives exist for such clinical scenarios, including a noninvasive monitoring approach, minimally invasive tooth recontouring, orthodontic and prosthodontic treatment, and implant placement. The findings of this pilot study highlight the utmost relevance of incorporating individual patients' needs and risks into clinical treatment planning and providing appropriate guidelines.

RESUMEN

The peer-review process is a fundamental component in the advancement of science. In this process, independent reviewers evaluate the quality of a manuscript and its suitability for publication in a particular scientific journal. Thus, to favour the publication of the highest-level information, the peer-review system should be as unbiased as possible. Although the peer-review system is the most commonly used method to select manuscripts for publication, it has several potential limitations. The main objective of this manuscript is to discuss some limitations of the peer-review system and suggest potential solutions from the perspective of an author and reviewer. This article may contribute to the always-dynamic development of the peer-review process.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Several systematic reviews with meta-analyses on the effectiveness of periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control have been published. So far no overview of these systematic reviews has been performed. The main objective of this report was to assess critically these systematic reviews to provide the reader with a high-level synthesis of research evidence. MEDLINE (via PubMed) and EMBASE databases were searched independently and in duplicate to identify systematic reviews with meta-analyses of clinical studies that assessed the relationship between diabetes mellitus and periodontitis. The last database search was performed on 10 March 2015. The reference lists of included systematic reviews were also scrutinized for further publications. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed independently with two validated checklists (AMSTAR and OQAQ) by two authors. Disagreements in the assessment were resolved by consensus. A total of 226 potential publications were initially retrieved. Eleven systematic reviews with meta-analyses were finally included. Glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was the most commonly used clinical endpoint. Meta-analytic estimates from systematic reviews generated an average reduction of 0.46% (median 0.40%) of HbA1c in patients with diabetes mellitus who received periodontal treatment. These meta-analyses had, nevertheless, methodological limitations such as inclusion of trials with different types of risk of bias that hinder more robust conclusions. A recent meta-analysis that included recently published large randomized controlled trials did not show significant change in the level of HbA1c at the 6 mo follow-up. The AMSTAR checklist generated results that were more conservative than OQAQ. Findings from this overview do not support the information that periodontal treatment may improve glycaemic control. Methodological issues described in this overview may guide further research on this topic.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to conduct a methodological assessment of paper-based systematic reviews (SR) published in oral health using a validated checklist. A secondary objective was to explore temporal trends on methodological quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two electronic databases (OVID Medline and OVID EMBASE) were searched for paper-based SR of interventions published in oral health from inception to October 2014. Manual searches of the reference lists of paper-based SR were also conducted. Methodological quality of included paper-based SR was assessed using an 11-item questionnaire, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Methodological quality was summarized using the median and inter-quartile range (IQR) of the AMSTAR score over different categories and time periods. RESULTS: A total of 643 paper-based SR were included. The overall median AMSTAR score was 4 (IQR 2-6). The highest median score (5) was found in the pain dentistry and periodontology fields, while the lowest median score (3) was found in implant dentistry, restorative dentistry, oral medicine, and prosthodontics. The number of paper-based SR per year and the median AMSTAR score increased over time (median score in 1990s was 2 (IQR 2-3), 2000s was 4 (IQR 2-5), and 2010 onwards was 5 (IQR 3-6)). CONCLUSION: Although the methodological quality of paper-based SR published in oral health has improved in the last few years, there is still scope for improving quality in most evaluated dental specialties. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Large-scale assessment of methodological quality of dental SR highlights areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses that can be targeted in future publications to encourage better quality review methodology.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Economic evaluation (EE) studies have been undertaken in dentistry since the late 20th century because economic data provide additional information to policy makers to develop guidelines and set future direction for oral health services. The objectives of this study were to assess the methodological quality of EEs in oral health. Electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database from 1975 to 2013 were undertaken to identify publications that include costs and outcomes in dentistry. Relevant reference lists were also searched for additional studies. Studies were retrieved and reviewed independently for inclusion by 3 authors. Furthermore, to appraise the EE methods, 1 author applied the Drummond 10-item (13-criteria) checklist tool to each study. Of the 114 publications identified, 79 studies were considered full EE and 35 partial. Twenty-eight studies (30%) were published between the years 2011 and 2013. Sixty-four (53%) studies focused on dental caries prevention or treatment. Median appraisal scores calculated for full and partial EE studies were 11 and 9 out of 13, respectively. Quality assessment scores showed that the quality of partial EE studies published after 2000 significantly improved (P = 0.02) compared to those published before 2000. Significant quality improvement was not found in full EE studies. Common methodological limitations were identified: absence of sensitivity analysis, discounting, and insufficient information on how costs and outcomes were measured and valued. EE studies in dentistry increased over the last 40 y in both quantity and quality, but a number of publications failed to satisfy some components of standard EE research methods, such as sensitivity analysis and discounting.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Dental caries is the main problem oral health and it is not well established in the literature if the enamel defects are a risk factor for its development. OBJECTIVE: Studies have reported a potential association between developmental defects enamel (DDE) and dental caries occurrence. We investigated the association between DDE and caries in permanent dentition of children and teenagers. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was carried out using four databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and Science Direct), which were searched from their earliest records until December 31, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Population-based studies assessing differences in dental caries experience according to the presence of enamel defects (and their types) were included. PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews were followed. Meta-analysis was performed to assess the pooled effect, and meta-regression was carried out to identify heterogeneity sources. From the 2558 initially identified papers, nine studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria after checking the titles, abstracts, references, and complete reading. Seven of them were included in the meta-analysis with random model. RESULTS: A positive association between enamel defects and dental caries was identified; meta-analysis showed that individuals with DDE had higher pooled odds of having dental caries experience [OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.3; 3.54)]. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that adjustment for sociodemographic factors, countries' socioeconomic status, and bias (quality of studies) explained the high heterogeneity observed. CONCLUSION: A higher chance of dental caries should be expected among individuals with enamel defects.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Systemic antimicrobials have been used as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of periodontitis. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the use of antimicrobials may improve tooth survival in patients with periodontitis. The main objective of this overview of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses was to assess the evidence supporting systemic antimicrobials for improving tooth survival in patients suffering from periodontitis. Information on adverse events was also extracted from SRs. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched independently (up to 1st August 2013) to identify SRs with meta-analyses on the use of systemic antimicrobials as an adjunctive treatment to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of periodontitis. Tooth survival and adverse events were assessed. Clinical effect was also assessed based on endpoints including clinical attachment level and probing depth. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed by two authors using two checklists (AMSTAR and OQAQ). RESULTS: No data on tooth survival after treatment with SRP and antimicrobials were found. Nine SRs were included in this overview. Three SRs showed statistically significant outcome improvement with the use of antimicrobials, although the clinical relevance may be questionable. One SR showed better results based on surrogate endpoints; however, short-term adverse events were more pronounced with the use of antimicrobials. The reporting of long-term data on clinical effects, adverse events and bacterial resistance is scarce. The SRs were of heterogeneous quality. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the efficacy of systemic antimicrobials on improving tooth survival is lacking. Further research focused on tooth survival and adverse events should be performed to provide more robust evidence of the benefits of using systemic antimicrobials for treating periodontitis.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Industry-supported clinical trials may present better outcomes than those supported by other sources. The aim of this paper was to assess whether systematic reviews (SRs) published in periodontology and implant dentistry report and discuss the influence of funding sources on study results. Two reviewers conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews independently and in duplicate to identify SRs published up to 11 November 2012. Speciality dental journals and the reference lists of included SRs were also scrutinised. Information on the reporting and discussion of funding sources of primary studies included in the SRs was extracted independently and in duplicate. Any disagreement regarding SR selection or data extraction was discussed until consensus was achieved. Of 146 SRs included in the assessment, only 45 (31%) reported the funding sources of primary studies. Fourteen (10%) SRs discussed the potential influence of funding sources on study results, that is, sponsorship bias. Funding sources are inadequately reported and discussed in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment, reporting, and critical appraisal of potential sponsorship bias of meta-analytic estimates are paramount to provide proper guidance for clinical treatments.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure the correct interpretation of study results by readers. The main objective of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry. Differences in reporting of abstracts in Cochrane and paper-based reviews were also assessed. METHODS: The PubMed electronic database and the Cochrane database for SRs were searched on November 11, 2012, independently and in duplicate, for SRs with meta-analyses related to interventions in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment of the quality of reporting was performed independently and in duplicate, taking into account items related to the effect direction, numerical estimates of effect size, measures of precision, probability and consistency. RESULTS: We initially screened 433 papers and included 146 (127 paper-based and 19 Cochrane reviews, respectively). The direction of evidence was reported in two-thirds of the abstracts while strength of evidence and measure of precision (i.e., confidence interval) were reported in less than half the selected abstracts. Measures of consistency such as I(2) statistics were reported in only 5% of the selected sample of abstracts. Cochrane abstracts reported the limitations of evidence and precision better than paper-based ones. Two items ("meta-analysis" in title and abstract, respectively), were nevertheless better reported in paper-based abstracts. CONCLUSION: Abstracts of SRs with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry currently have no uniform standard of reporting, which may hinder readers' understanding of study outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Dental meetings are one of the most important resources for disseminating knowledge to dental practitioners. Therefore, the information provided in such meetings should be as unbiased as possible. This paper assessed whether major general dentistry and periodontology/implant dentistry meetings have guidelines for reporting scientific evidence in oral lectures and seminars. The homepages of seven dental meetings (EUROPERIO, AAP, EAO, AO, IADR, ADA, and FDI) were assessed to check for guidelines for presenting scientific data in oral lectures and seminars, according to defined criteria. Only three of these dental meetings reported information for presentations on their homepages, although these guidelines were related to technical issues rather than recommendations for the presentation of scientific data. The present paper suggests guidelines for reporting scientific evidence in oral lectures and seminars in dental meetings to improve the current standards of reporting. High standards of reporting may provide less biased information, which is necessary for dental practitioners and clinicians to make accurate judgements on the efficacy/effectiveness of therapies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To help the dental practitioner solve a specific clinical problem, systematic reviews (SRs) are seen as the best guide. In addition to the unmanageable quantity of SRs, however, one should be aware of their variable quality. The present review describes the methodological quality of SRs on postendodontic restorations to work out the value of these reviews for the dental practitioner. METHODOLOGY: SRs were searched in April 2012, independently and in triplicate. Post survival was used as measure of outcome. The methodological quality of included SRs was assessed with the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist. Kappa statistics were used to assess reviewer agreement. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-three papers were retrieved from the initial search. Ten SRs were included. One SR achieved a high R-AMSTAR score, whereas the other nine SRs achieved scores that indicate a substantial lack of methodological quality. Especially the items "grey literature," "combination of findings," "likelihood of publication bias," and conflict of interest" showed low R-AMSTAR scores. The three reviews with the highest R-AMSTAR scores tended to conclude that fewer failures occurred when using nonmetal posts. The reviewer agreement was excellent (kappa ranged from 0.79 to 0.85) in the R-AMSTAR classification. CONCLUSION: The approach presented revealed a lack of SRs with high methodological quality. Thus, no decisive conclusion can be drawn with respect to this topic. It appears that there is a trend for the superiority of fiber-reinforced posts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SRs must be of high methodological quality. This can be achieved by taking into consideration the results of this review. Improved methodological quality would make SRs more supportive for the general practitioner.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Use of guidelines is an important means of reducing the gap between research and clinical practice. Sound and unbiased information should be available to enable dental professionals to provide better clinical treatment for their patients. The development of clinical guidelines in dentistry should follow standard and transparent methodology. The purpose of this article is to propose important steps for developing evidence-based clinical recommendations in dentistry. Initially, dental guidelines should be extensively sought and assessed to answer focused clinical questions. If there is a paucity of guidelines or if existing guidelines are not of good methodological quality, systematic reviews should be searched or conducted to serve as a basis for the development of evidence-based guidelines. When systematic reviews are produced, they should be rigorous in order to provide the best evidence possible. In the last phase of the process, the overall quality of evidence should be scrutinized and assessed, together with other factors (balance between treatment effects and side effects, patients' values, and cost-effectiveness of therapy) to determine the strength of recommendations. It is expected this approach will result in the development of sound clinical guidelines and consequent improvement of dental treatment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To describe income-related inequalities in chewing ability of the elderly populations residing in different European countries. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: This study investigates income-related inequalities on basis of cross-sectional data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE Wave 2). PARTICIPANTS: SHARE contains information on chewing abilities of 33,411 individuals aged 50+ from 14 different countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Income-related inequalities in chewing ability were identified by means of concentration indices (CI) and slope indices of inequality (SII). RESULTS: Disproportionate concentration of chewing ability among the rich elderly populations was evident for all countries except Ireland (relative inequality according to CI). Moreover, chewing abilities were significantly better amongst individuals from the highest income groups, compared with the lowest, for all countries except Italy, Switzerland, Czechia, Poland and Ireland (absolute inequality according to SII). Denture status explained some proportion of absolute but not of relative inequalities. CONCLUSION: There is considerable income-related inequality in chewing ability for several elderly populations residing in Europe.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies are important for improving estimates of the effects of treatment and for guiding future clinical studies on humans. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies in dentistry through using a validated checklist. A literature search was conducted independently and in duplicate in the PubMed and LILACS databases. References in selected systematic reviews were assessed to identify other studies not captured by the electronic searches. The methodological quality of studies was assessed independently and in duplicate by using the AMSTAR checklist; the quality was scored as low, moderate, or high. The reviewers were calibrated before the assessment and agreement between them was assessed using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Of 444 studies retrieved, 54 systematic reviews were selected after full-text assessment. Agreement between the reviewers was regarded as excellent. Only two studies were scored as high quality; 17 and 35 studies were scored as medium and low quality, respectively. There is room for improvement of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry. Checklists, such as AMSTAR, can guide researchers in planning and executing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For determining the need for additional investigations in animals and in order to provide good data for potential application in human, such reviews should be based on animal experiments performed according to sound methodological principles.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Authorship contribution is an important issue that has been discussed frequently in the medical literature. There are many reported cases of 'guest' authors (who sign as authors without meeting authorship criteria) and 'ghost' authors (who are credited to get authorship, but for some reason do not sign the article). Therefore, clear and transparent policies for reporting authorship/contributorship are needed in scientific journals. The objective of this survey was to assess the authorship and contributorship policies that are made publically available on the homepages of dental journals. The policies of 64 impact factor-ranked dental journals were assessed with a 6-item checklist based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for authorship/contributorship. Most dental journals partially reported the ICMJE guidelines, and therefore the improvement of this reporting is a requirement to promote transparency and integrity in dental research. Moreover, dental journals should develop strategies to improve author adherence to available guidelines for authorship and contributorship.

Asunto(s)