Dataset Information

Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Consensus guidelines are useful to improve clinical decision making. Therefore, the methodological evaluation of these guidelines is of paramount importance. Low quality information may guide to inadequate or harmful clinical decisions.

Objective

To evaluate the methodological quality of consensus guidelines published in implant dentistry using a validated methodological instrument.

Methods

The six implant dentistry journals with impact factors were scrutinised for consensus guidelines related to implant dentistry. Two assessors independently selected consensus guidelines, and four assessors independently evaluated their methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Disagreements in the selection and evaluation of guidelines were resolved by consensus. First, the consensus guidelines were analysed alone. Then, systematic reviews conducted to support the guidelines were included in the analysis. Non-parametric statistics for dependent variables (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was used to compare both groups.

Results

Of 258 initially retrieved articles, 27 consensus guidelines were selected. Median scores in four domains (applicability, rigour of development, stakeholder involvement, and editorial independence), expressed as percentages of maximum possible domain scores, were below 50% (median, 26%, 30.70%, 41.70%, and 41.70%, respectively). The consensus guidelines and consensus guidelines + systematic reviews data sets could be compared for 19 guidelines, and the results showed significant improvements in all domain scores (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Methodological improvement of consensus guidelines published in major implant dentistry journals is needed. The findings of the present study may help researchers to better develop consensus guidelines in implant dentistry, which will improve the quality and trust of information needed to make proper clinical decisions.

SUBMITTER: Faggion CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5249121 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry.

Faggion Clovis Mariano CM Apaza Karol K Ariza-Fritas Tania T Málaga Lilian L Giannakopoulos Nikolaos Nikitas NN Alarcón Marco Antonio MA

PloS one 20170120 1

<h4>Background</h4>Consensus guidelines are useful to improve clinical decision making. Therefore, the methodological evaluation of these guidelines is of paramount importance. Low quality information may guide to inadequate or harmful clinical decisions.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the methodological quality of consensus guidelines published in implant dentistry using a validated methodological instrument.<h4>Methods</h4>The six implant dentistry journals with impact factors were scrutinised f ...[more]

PMID: 28107405

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo review the content of recommendations within antenatal oral healthcare guidance documents and appraise the quality of their methodology to inform areas of development, clinical practice, and research focus.MethodA systematic search of five electronic databases, Google search engine, and databases from relevant professional and guideline development groups published in English, developed countries, and between 2010 and 2020 was undertaken to identify guidance documents related to antenatal oral healthcare. Quality of documents was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool, and a 3-step quality cut-off value was used. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to categories discreet recommendations into themes.ResultsSix guidelines and one consensus statement were analysed. Two documents developed within Australia scored ≥60% across five of the six domains of the quality appraisal tool and were recommended for use. Four documents (developed in the United States and Canada) were recommended for use with modifications, whilst one document (developed in Europe) was not recommended. A total of 98 discreet recommendations were identified and demonstrated considerable unanimity but differed in scope and level of information. The main content and number of recommendations were inductively categorised within the following clinical practice points: risk factor assessments (n = 2), screening and assessment (n = 10), pre-pregnancy care (referral, n = 1), antenatal care (health education and advice, n = 14; management of nausea and vomiting, n = 7; referral, n = 2), postnatal care (health education and advice, n = 1; anticipatory guidance, n = 6), documentation (n = 4), coordinated care (n = 4), capacity building (n = 6), and community engagement (n = 1).ConclusionThe methodological rigour of included guidance documents revealed areas of strengths and limitations and posit areas for improvement. Further research could centre on adapting antenatal oral healthcare guidelines and consensus statements to local contexts. More high-quality studies examining interventions within antenatal oral healthcare are needed to support the development of recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundThe overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews including animal models can be heterogeneous. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews including animal models in dentistry as well as the overall confidence in the results of those systematic reviews.Material & methodsPubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for systematic reviews including animal studies in dentistry published later than January 2010 until 18th of July 2022. Overall confidence in the results was assessed using a modified version of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. Checklist items were rated as yes, partial yes, no and not applicable. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations between systematic review characteristics and the overall adherence to the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The overall confidence in the results was calculated based on the number of critical and non-critical weaknesses presented in the AMSTAR-2 items and rated as high, moderate, low and critical low.ResultsOf initially 951 retrieved systematic reviews, 190 were included in the study. The overall confidence in the results was low in 43 (22.6%) and critically low in 133 (70.0%) systematic reviews. While some AMSTAR-2 items were regularly reported (e.g. conflict of interest, selection in duplicate), others were not (e.g.Fundingn = 1; 0.5%). Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that the adherence scores of AMSTAR-2 was significantly associated with publication year, journal impact factor (IF), topic, and the use of tools to assess risk of bias (RoB) of the systematic reviews.ConclusionAlthough the methodological quality of dental systematic reviews of animal models improved over the years, it is still suboptimal. The overall confidence in the results was mostly low or critically low. Systematic reviews, which were published later, published in a journal with a higher IF, focused on non-surgery topics, and used at least one tool to assess RoB correlated with greater adherence to the AMSTAR-2 guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundPediatric clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can provide systematically developed clinical recommendations to guide pediatric clinicians and patients making decisions. This study aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of pediatric CPGs.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE from 1 January 1990 to 2 April 2020 to identify pediatric CPGs published in the ten highest-impact pediatric journals and four highest-impact general medical journals. Two researchers evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of pediatric CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health care (RIGHT) checklist. We calculated the mean AGREE II scores and compliance to RIGHT overall, and for each domain of the respective tools. We compared the methodological and reporting quality by different time periods and calculated the correlation between the AGREE II score and compliance to RIGHT.ResultsA total of 159 pediatric CPGs were identified. The mean (± standard deviation) scores for the six domains of the AGREE II instrument were as follows: scope and purpose 74.5%±14.2%, stakeholder involvement 42.7%±16.2%, rigour of development 18.7%±14.2%, clarity of presentation 56.5%±17.0%, applicability 8.9%±12.7% and editorial independence 25.2%±34.6%. The overall assessment score was 37.8%±12.4%. The mean compliance to RIGHT items in the seven domains of the checklist were: basic information 73.6%±14.9%, background 67.1%±16.4%, evidence 32.7%±27.2%, recommendations 32.4%±22.5%, review and quality assurance 22.9%±40.4%, funding and declaration and management of interests 24.1%±36.3%, and other information 45.3%±30.1%. The overall reporting rate for RIGHT was 46.4%±16.6%. Both the AGREE II scores and RIGHT reporting rates increased over time. We found a high positive correlation between AGREE II scores and RIGHT reporting compliance (r=0.645, P<0.001).DiscussionThe methodological and reporting quality of pediatric CPGs have improved over time, but remain still suboptimal and needs to be further improved. An international database of pediatric guidelines is urgently needed to identify and promote high-quality guidelines and guide clinical practice in pediatrics.

Dataset Information

Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets