Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38159154›Full record

ReviewClinical oral investigations2023

Methodological quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in cariology.

Cristina Helena Morello Sartori, Thais Mazzetti, Fernando Antônio Vargas Júnior, Ândrea Pires Daneris, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci, Françoise Hélène van de Sande, Anelise Fernandes Montagner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Cristina Helena Morello SartoriSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2346-7394
Thais MazzettiGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6877-2099
Fernando Antônio Vargas JúniorSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1784-0861
Ândrea Pires DanerisSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2978-6150
Maximiliano Sérgio CenciDepartment of Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2543-6201
Françoise Hélène van de SandeGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8239-9630
Anelise Fernandes MontagnerGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. animontag@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1586-2335

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe present study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in the cariology field. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic search on electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, DARE and Epistemonikos), websites, and guideline organizations were undertaken. Evidence-based CPGs including at least one recommendation for clinical prevention and/or management of dental caries, developed for any clinical setting, were included. The quality of each guideline was evaluated using the AGREE II tool. Descriptive analysis was performed and the average overall score for each domain was calculated.

resultsThirty-two guidelines were included. Most of the CPGs achieved higher scores for the domains of clarity of presentation (66.7%, 95% IC 37.3-52.2) and scope and purpose (59.6%, 95% IC 53.7-65.5) domains; and lower scores for editorial independence (46.1%, 95% IC 37.8-55.7) and applicability domain (44.7%, 95% IC 37-55.3). The reviewers assessed 12 CPGs (37.5%) as recommended for use, 15 (46.9%) recommended with modifications, and 5 (15.6%) as not recommended.

conclusionThe overall methodological quality of evidence-based CPGs in the cariology field is moderate, and there is a need for improvements in reporting related to most domains. The poorest reporting was found in the description of the domains' applicability of its recommendations and editorial independence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinical Practice Guidelines provide guidance to patients, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders. The quality of these documents is essential for establishing trust in their recommendations.

Indexed as

Dental CariesEvidence-Based DentistryHealth PersonnelHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicBest practiceCariologyClinical practice guidelineDecision-makingDental cariesMethodological quality

Identifiers

PMID38159154

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.