Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

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.

Professional Variability in Decision Making in Modern Dentistry: A Pilot Study

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.

An overview of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control

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.

Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health

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.

Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Economic Evaluation Publications in Dentistry

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.

Are there guidelines for reporting clinical research findings in oral lectures and seminars in dental meetings?

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.

Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry

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.

The development of evidence-based guidelines in dentistry

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.

Income-related inequalities in chewing ability of Europeans aged 50 and above

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.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry

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.

The shortened dental arch revisited: from evidence to recommendations by the use of the GRADE approach

Clinicians must frequently decide whether or not to treat patients with loss of posterior teeth, a condition called the shortened dental arch (SDA). Although many studies have been reported, there are no clear recommendations for the management of SDA cases. In this work, therefore, an innovative system, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, was used to grade the evidence and strength of recommendations for clinical intervention. An extensive literature search for longitudinal studies was conducted on 17 November 2010 in the PubMed and LILACS electronic databases using the term shortened dental arch. A 'snowballing' strategy, for example, manual searching of the reference lists of included papers, was also conducted. Unpublished and published studies were sought in ClinicalTrials.gov and in the search engine 'Google' (Scholar) in English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. Finally, grey literature was searched in OpenSIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe). Titles and abstracts of 133 articles were initially assessed. Nine studies were finally included. Although there was no difference between the effectiveness of restorative and non-restorative approaches for SDA, fixed partial dentures seem better than removable prostheses. The overall body of evidence was, however, graded as low quality. Two different clinical scenarios are used to illustrate recommendations in the management of SDA cases by the use of the GRADE system. The GRADE approach may improve transparency in a shared decision-making process, mainly under conditions in which the quality of evidence is low or unclear.

Evidence-based dentistry: a model for clinical practice

Making decisions in dentistry should be based on the best evidence available. The objective of this study was to demonstrate a practical procedure and model that clinicians can use to apply the results of well-conducted studies to patient care by critically appraising the evidence with checklists and letter grade scales. To demonstrate application of this model for critically appraising the quality of research evidence, a hypothetical case involving an adult male with chronic periodontitis is used as an example. To determine the best clinical approach for this patient, a four-step, evidence-based model is demonstrated, consisting of the following: definition of a research question using the PICO format, search and selection of relevant literature, critical appraisal of identified research reports using checklists, and the application of evidence. In this model, the quality of research evidence was assessed quantitatively based on different levels of quality that are assigned letter grades of A, B, and C by evaluating the studies against the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting Meta-Analyses) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklists in a tabular format. For this hypothetical periodontics case, application of the model identified the best available evidence for clinical decision making, i.e., one randomized controlled trial and one systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Both studies showed similar answers for the research question. The use of a letter grade scale allowed an objective analysis of the quality of evidence. A checklist-driven model that assesses and applies evidence to dental practice may substantially improve dentists' decision making skill.

Prognostic model for tooth survival in patients treated for periodontitis

BACKGROUND

In patients with periodontitis, a quantitative prognostic assessment is needed in order to make evidence-based decisions about retaining teeth or extracting and replacing them with a dental prosthesis.

METHODS

One hundred and ninety eight patients receiving active periodontal treatment in 1989 or 1990 and complying with supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) over an average of 11.8+/-2.3 years were included in the study. A generalized linear model was established and fitted via generalized estimating equations to identify predictors for tooth loss during SPT.

RESULTS

Of the 4559 teeth present at baseline, 166 (3.6%) were extracted during active treatment and 249 (5.5%) during SPT. Baseline findings of diabetes mellitus (OR=4.17), reduced alveolar bone levels (OR=1.04 for each 1% increment), increased tooth mobility (III versus 0: OR=5.52), multiple roots (OR=1.82), and non-vital pulp (OR=2.24) were significant (p<0.05) predictors for tooth loss during SPT. Based on these parameters, a prognostic model was constructed that provides estimates of tooth survival probability when periodontal therapy is rendered.

CONCLUSION

Using a multivariate approach, a prognostic model was developed that may be of value for clinical decision making.