Dataset Information

Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. We included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials where patients were followed for any length of time. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were synthesized with a random effects model and a frequentist approach. Forty-four trials (48 reports) were eligible, which included 7,378 participants and assessed the effect of 22 interventions in arresting or reversing noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions. Four network meta-analyses suggested that sealants + 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish, and 5,000-ppm F (1.1% NaF) toothpaste or gel were the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated occlusal, approximal, and noncavitated and cavitated root carious lesions on primary and/or permanent teeth, respectively (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Study-level data indicated that 5% NaF varnish was the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated facial/lingual carious lesions (low certainty) and that 38% silver diamine fluoride solution applied biannually was the most effective for arresting advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (moderate to high certainty). Preventing the onset of caries is the ultimate goal of a caries management plan. However, if the disease is present, there is a variety of effective interventions to treat carious lesions nonrestoratively.

SUBMITTER: Urquhart O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6304695 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Urquhart O O Tampi M P MP Pilcher L L Slayton R L RL Araujo M W B MWB Fontana M M Guzmán-Armstrong S S Nascimento M M MM Nový B B BB Tinanoff N N Weyant R J RJ Wolff M S MS Young D A DA Zero D T DT Brignardello-Petersen R R Banfield L L Parikh A A Joshi G G Carrasco-Labra A A

Journal of dental research 20181005 1

The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. W ...[more]

PMID: 30290130

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe antifibrotics pirfenidone and nintedanib are both approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) by regulatory agencies and are recommended by health technology assessment bodies. Other treatments such as N-acetylcysteine are used in clinical practice but have not received regulatory approval. No head-to-head trials have been conducted to directly compare the efficacy of these therapies in IPF.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of treatments for IPF.MethodsA systematic review was conducted up to April 2015. Phase II/III randomized controlled trials in adults with IPF were eligible. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare pirfenidone, nintedanib, and N-acetylcysteine with respect to forced vital capacity (FVC) and mortality.ResultsNine studies were included in the NMA. For change from baseline in FVC, the NMA indicated that pirfenidone and nintedanib were more effective than placebo after 1 year (pirfenidone vs. placebo: difference = 0.12 liter (L), 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.03-0.21 L; nintedanib vs. placebo: difference = 0.11 L, 95% CrI = 0.00-0.22 L). There was no evidence that N-acetylcysteine had an effect on FVC compared with placebo (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo: difference = 0.01 L, 95% CrI = -0.15-0.17 L). Patients treated with pirfenidone also had a lower risk of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥ 10% over 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.58, 95% CrI = 0.40-0.88), whereas there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between nintedanib and placebo (OR: 0.65, 95% CrI = 0.42-1.02). The NMA indicated that pirfenidone reduced all-cause mortality relative to placebo over 1 year (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52, 95% CrI = 0.28-0.92). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality between nintedanib and placebo (HR: 0.70, 95% CrI = 0.32-1.55), or N-acetylcysteine and placebo (HR: 2.00, 95% CrI=0.46-8.62).ConclusionsOur primary analysis of the available evidence indicates that over 1 year, pirfenidone and nintedanib are effective at reducing lung-function decline, and pirfenidone may reduce the odds of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥10% compared with placebo in the first year of treatment. The results of our analysis also suggest that pirfenidone improves survival.DisclosuresFleetwood is an employee of Quantics Consulting. McCool and Glanville are employees of York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC). Quantics and YHEC received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for conducting the systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper. Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl are employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Fisher was employed by InterMune UK, a wholly owned Roche subsidiary, until July 2015. He is currently employed by FIECON, which has received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for consulting services. The systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper were conducted by Fleetwood (Quantics Consulting) and McCool and Glanville (YHEC), funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. The original network analysis was funded by InterMune. Study concept and design were contributed by Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl, along with Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville. Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville collected the data, with assistance from Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl. Data interpretation was performed by Fleetwood and Fisher, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville, with assistance from Edwards, Daigl, and Fisher, and revised by all the authors.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).ConclusionCorticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Project description:ImportanceIncidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.ObjectiveTo compare pharmacological therapies for neonatal abstinence syndrome.Data sourcesSystematic review and network meta-analysis of Medline (1946-June 2018), Embase (1974-June 2018), Cochrane CENTRAL (1966-June 2018), Web of Science (1900-June 2018), and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2018).Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome alone or in combination with adjuvant treatments. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.).Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and data were pooled with fixed-effect models as a result of the low number of trials that were included in the analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the length of treatment. The length of stay, need for adjuvant therapy, and adverse events were considered as secondary outcomes.ResultsEighteen trials (N = 1072) were eligible for inclusion. The treatments that were included in the length of treatment analysis were buprenorphine, clonidine, diluted tincture of opium and clonidine, diluted tincture of opium, morphine, methadone, and phenobarbital. Sublingual buprenorphine was considered the optimal treatment for a reduction in the length of treatment (days: mean difference vs morphine, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.97 to -7.58]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) and length of stay (days: mean difference vs morphine, -11.43 [95% CI, -16.95 to -5.82]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) but not the need for adjuvant treatment (odds ratio vs morphine, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.46-3.44]; median rank, 3 [5-1]). The results were robust to bias but sensitive to imprecision.Conclusions and relevanceThe current evidence suggests that buprenorphine is the optimal treatment for neonatal abstinence treatment, but limitations are considerable and wide-scale adoption requires a large multisite trial. Morphine, which is considered standard of care in most hospitals, was the lowest-ranked opioid for length of treatment and length of stay.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy are recommended by NCCN, ESMO and Japanese guidelines respectively for resectable esophageal and junctional cancer. However, these recommendations are mainly based on esophageal cancer research. Therefore, specific for esophagogastric junction cancer, we conducted the first systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank all potential treatments simultaneously and hierarchically.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO and ESMO Meeting Library from inception to September 2018. Regarding time-to-event survival data, randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different multimodal treatments against resectable esophagogastric junction cancer were eligible. Overall survival was the endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model and the relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by P-score (CRD42018110369, registration identifier of the meta-analysis in PROSPERO.).ResultsEight studies were included in our systematic review, corresponding to 1218 patients. Regarding overall survival, 'PreCRT' (preoperative chemoradiotherapy) topped the hierarchy (HR 1.00, P-score = 0.823), better than 'PeriCT' (perioperative chemotherapy; HR 1.32, P-score = 0.591) and 'PreCT' (preoperative chemotherapy; HR 1.54, P-score = 0.428). In sensitivity analyses, irrespective of interchanging to fixed-effects model or removing potentially heterogeneous studies, relative rankings remained stable and 'PreCRT' was still the optimal node.ConclusionPreoperative chemoradiotherapy could potentially be the optimal multimodal treatment, which displayed more overall survival benefits than perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy among resectable esophagogastric junction cancer patients. To further verify our pooled results, more randomized trials will be needed to compare preoperative chemoradiotherapy with perioperative chemotherapy (especially FLOT-based regimens).

Dataset Information

Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Publications

Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets