Dataset Information

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on antibiotic use for the urgent management of pulpal- and periapical-related dental pain and intraoral swelling: A report from the American Dental Association.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with or without symptomatic apical periodontitis, pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, or pulp necrosis and localized acute apical abscess using antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) in immunocompetent adults.

Types of studies reviewed

The authors conducted a search of the literature in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to retrieve evidence on benefits and harms associated with antibiotic use. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and the Evidence-to-Decision framework.

Results

The panel formulated 5 clinical recommendations and 2 good practice statements, each specific to the target conditions, for settings in which DCDT is and is not immediately available. With likely negligible benefits and potentially large harms, the panel recommended against using antibiotics in most clinical scenarios, irrespective of DCDT availability. They recommended antibiotics in patients with systemic involvement (for example, malaise or fever) due to the dental conditions or when the risk of experiencing progression to systemic involvement is high.

Conclusion and practical implications

Evidence suggests that antibiotics for the target conditions may provide negligible benefits and probably contribute to large harms. The expert panel suggests that antibiotics for target conditions be used only when systemic involvement is present and that immediate DCDT should be prioritized in all cases.

SUBMITTER: Lockhart PB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270006 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adults and is intended for use in conjunction with other American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing in adults.MethodsThe AASM commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence. The task force developed recommendations and assigned strengths based on the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use. In addition, the task force adopted foundational recommendations from prior guidelines as "good practice statements", that establish the basis for appropriate and effective diagnosis of OSA. The AASM Board of Directors approved the final recommendations.RecommendationsThe following recommendations are intended as a guide for clinicians diagnosing OSA in adults. Under GRADE, a STRONG recommendation is one that clinicians should follow under most circumstances. A WEAK recommendation reflects a lower degree of certainty regarding the outcome and appropriateness of the patient-care strategy for all patients. The ultimate judgment regarding propriety of any specific care must be made by the clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient, available diagnostic tools, accessible treatment options, and resources. Good Practice Statements: Diagnostic testing for OSA should be performed in conjunction with a comprehensive sleep evaluation and adequate follow-up. Polysomnography is the standard diagnostic test for the diagnosis of OSA in adult patients in whom there is a concern for OSA based on a comprehensive sleep evaluation.Recommendations: We recommend that clinical tools, questionnaires and prediction algorithms not be used to diagnose OSA in adults, in the absence of polysomnography or home sleep apnea testing. (STRONG). We recommend that polysomnography, or home sleep apnea testing with a technically adequate device, be used for the diagnosis of OSA in uncomplicated adult patients presenting with signs and symptoms that indicate an increased risk of moderate to severe OSA. (STRONG). We recommend that if a single home sleep apnea test is negative, inconclusive, or technically inadequate, polysomnography be performed for the diagnosis of OSA. (STRONG). We recommend that polysomnography, rather than home sleep apnea testing, be used for the diagnosis of OSA in patients with significant cardiorespiratory disease, potential respiratory muscle weakness due to neuromuscular condition, awake hypoventilation or suspicion of sleep related hypoventilation, chronic opioid medication use, history of stroke or severe insomnia. (STRONG). We suggest that, if clinically appropriate, a split-night diagnostic protocol, rather than a full-night diagnostic protocol for polysomnography be used for the diagnosis of OSA. (WEAK). We suggest that when the initial polysomnogram is negative and clinical suspicion for OSA remains, a second polysomnogram be considered for the diagnosis of OSA. (WEAK).

Project description:PurposeTo provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.MethodsAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts to conduct a systematic review of the literature from April 2004 to June 2015. Outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events.ResultsTwenty-four randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria.RecommendationsA multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological status, support systems, and symptom burden should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; favorable comorbidity profile) or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) -paclitaxel (adequate comorbidity profile) should be offered to patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available. Gemcitabine alone is recommended for patients with ECOG PS 2 or with a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens; the addition of capecitabine or erlotinib may be offered. Patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 3 and poorly controlled comorbid conditions should be offered cancer-directed therapy only on a case-by-case basis; supportive care should be emphasized. For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX, an ECOG PS 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or nanoliposomal irinotecan should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, ECOG PS 0 to 1, and favorable comorbidity profile, and gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.ObjectiveTo characterize variations in the durability of class I ("procedure/treatment should be performed/administered") American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations.Design, setting, and participantsTextual analysis by 4 independent reviewers of 11 guidelines published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013.Main outcomes and measuresWe abstracted all class I recommendations from the first of the 2 most recent versions of each guideline and identified corresponding recommendations in the subsequent version. We classified recommendations replaced by less determinate or contrary recommendations as having been downgraded or reversed; we classified recommendations for which no corresponding item could be identified as having been omitted. We tested for differences in the durability of recommendations according to guideline topic and underlying level of evidence using bivariable hypothesis tests and conditional logistic regression.ResultsOf 619 index recommendations, 495 (80.0%; 95% CI, 76.6%-83.1%) were retained in the subsequent guideline version, 57 (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.0%-11.8%) were downgraded or reversed, and 67 (10.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-13.3%) were omitted. The percentage of recommendations retained varied across guidelines from 15.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-45.4%) to 94.1% (95% CI, 80.3%-99.3%; P < .001). Among recommendations with available information on level of evidence, 90.5% (95% CI, 83.2%-95.3%) of recommendations supported by multiple randomized studies were retained, vs 81.0% (95% CI, 74.8%-86.3%) of recommendations supported by 1 randomized trial or observational data and 73.7% (95% CI, 65.8%-80.5%) of recommendations supported by opinion (P = .001). After accounting for guideline-level factors, the probability of being downgraded, reversed, or omitted was greater for recommendations based on opinion (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.69-5.85; P < .001) or on 1 trial or observational data (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.45-8.41; P = .005) vs recommendations based on multiple trials.Conclusions and relevanceThe durability of class I cardiology guideline recommendations for procedures and treatments promulgated by the ACC/AHA varied across individual guidelines and levels of evidence. Downgrades, reversals, and omissions were most common among recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies.