Critical Appraisal of Studies Conducted in the Department of Periodontics, Mashhad School of Dentistry, in the Last Twenty Years (1994-2014) (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Descriptive Analysis of Clinical Articles Published in the Last 50 Years in the Dental Literature
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Aims: This article describes the methodologies used in the dental literature and described how these approaches have changed over time. Materials and methods: Thirty-three ISI peer-reviewed journals were included in the analyses. Data were extracted independently by 11 investigators and in duplicate. Any differences in the results were resolved via discussion or by a third reviewer when necessary. Data were collected regarding the methodology used in the article, and dental specialty related to different study designs. In the case in which more than one study design or specialty was reported, reviewers were trained to identify the main methodology/specialty. Results: The majority (36.96%) used a case report (CR) as the primary methodology, followed by a clinical trial (CT) (18.21%) or randomized CT (15.11%). The least used methodologies included a cohort (COH) study (6.07%) or a systematic review (SA)/meta-analysis (MA) (6.73%). Periodontology published the highest number of case controls (CCs) (46.8%), randomized CTs (RCTs) (29.9%), cross-sectional (CS) studies (26.0%), SRs/MAs (19.8%), and CTs (17.1%). Oral and maxillofacial surgery published the highest number of CRs/case series (54.5%) and COH studies (30.5%), whereas operative dentistry published the lowest number of CRs/case series (0.7%), CCs (2.9%), and SRs/MAs (2.3%). CRs/case series retain the highest number of publications across all time points in the dental literature overall. Conclusion: Our results indicate an improvement in the types of research and the pyramid of evidence, which will help in applying evidencebased dentistry (EBD) in clinical decision-making. Clinical significance: Types of studies used in the dental field are not yet investigated. Thus, little is known about the common study design types in dental literature. This can affect the decision made regarding technique, risk factors, prevention, or treatment.
Has the quality of reporting in periodontology changed in 14 years? A systematic review
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2016
BackgroundQuality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology has been poor. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines and an extension for non‐pharmacologic trials (CONSORT‐NPE), were introduced to aid in improving this.AimsThe aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in periodontology, changes over the last 14 years, and adherence to CONSORT‐NPE.MethodsRandomized controlled trials in humans, published in three periodontal journals, from 2013 to 2015 were included. Search was conducted through Medline, Embase and hand searching.ResultsOne hundred and seventy‐three full‐text articles included. Two reviewers screened for reporting quality (κ = 0.69, 95% CI 0.60–0.76). 84% of studies (n = 145) described randomization methods, 74% (n = 128) highlighted examiner blinding and 87% (n = 151) accounted for patients at study conclusion. Patient and caregiver blinding was addressed in 50% (n = 70) and 50% (n = 27) of studies respectively. 64%...
Clinical diagnosis criteria for periodontal disease: an update
Journal of Dental Health, Oral Disorders & Therapy
Background: The enormous volume of Orthodontic literature available makes it a daunting task for specialists to summarise all available evidence. Hence the need, for Systematic and Narrative reviews of literature. To ensure that evidence from such reviews is reliable, valid and beneficial to the local population, there is a need for critical appraisal of the review process. This paper aims to inform Orthodontists on how to do a critical appraisal of in the field of Orthodontics. Method: A critical appraisal tool, (CASP tool) the Critical Appraisal Skill Program (CASP), Public Health Resource Unit, and Institute of Health Oxford was used to appraise in broad terms the review process of Systematic and Narrative reviews as it applies to field of orthodontic literature. Results: The CASP tool can be used for the critical appraisal of Systematic and Narrative review of literature in the field of orthodontics; allowing orthodontists to base their clinical decisions upon reliable and valid evidence beneficial for the intended local population.
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2021
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of different treatment modalities have long been used to determine the gold standard intervention for different phases and types of periodontitis. The CONSORT statement was introduced and updated in 2010 (Schulz et al. 2010) to improve the methodology of clinical trials and reduce risk of bias, and it has been adopted as a submission requirement by most international peer-reviewed dental journals. Although the quality of RCTs has clearly improved over the last couple of decades, not all methodological aspects are always adhered to. While a lot of effort has been dedicated to improving methodology of randomization, perhaps less attention has been placed on a very important methodological aspect of RCTs, which is the definition of the primary outcome. The primary outcome should be clearly identified and reported, bearing in mind what is clinically relevant (Meher & Alfirevic, 2014). Clear "a priori" identification of a primary outcome avoids the risk of emphasizing secondary outcomes
Critical appraisal of systematic and narrative reviews of literature in the field of orthodontics
Journal of dental health, oral disorders & therapy, 2018
This article in an updated of its original version was published in the journal intitled "Jornal Brasileiro de Clínica Odontológica Integrada", volume 9, pages 88 and 89, in 2005. Due to improved knowledge concerning human health, and changes in the clinical diagnostic criteria for periodontal diseases that occurred after the study period, the need for some updates became evident. The frequency of periodontitis in the sample varied from 17.24% to 66.92%. Conclusions: the results of the present study indicate the need to use different diagnostic criteria of periodontal diseases depending on the type of study to be developed and population investigated. Taking care to use the appropriate diagnostic criteria, besides allowing the standardization of the definition of the diseases, contributes to improving the comparability between the findings of scientific studies in this field of health, since a diversity of clinical criteria exist.
Evidence Based Periodontology: An Overview
2015
Traditionally, clinical decisions in dentistry have been based on the experience of the clinical dentist. If a given treatment seemed to work, it was utilized again; if the results were disappointing, the procedure was deserted. Evaluating clinical treatment in this fashion is difficult because it is hard to know which factors are important for success and which ones contribute to failure. This came with the concept of evidence based approach which facilitates conclusions for clinical practice based on sound research studies. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how evidence based approach can both inform on and benefit healthcare in periodontology Keywords - Decision making, evidence based approach, meta-analysis, randomized control trial, systematic review.
Journal of Dentistry and Oral Care
Background: Diabetes mellitus and smoking are considered as two major risk factors that influence the severity and progression of periodontal disease. Severity and prevalence of periodontitis varies in different countries of the world and there are indications that may be extensive in developing more than high developed countries. Objective: The present study was designed to evaluate the periodontal conditions and severity of chronic periodontitis patients in relation to smoking and diabetes at Holy Mak-kah city. Materials and Methods: Two hundred and fifty-four patient adult male chronic periodon-titis patients were participated in this study, their age ranging from 24 to 60 years old with mean age of 37.50 ± 0.13 years. The patients were selected from enrolled individuals at screening unit in three dental centers at Makkah city. The selection of chronic periodon-titis patients were based on two major risk factors in presence or absence of smoking and diabetes mellitus and they categorized into the following four groups G1: Non diabetic nonsmokers, G2: Diabetic nonsmokers, G3: Non diabetic smokers, G4: Diabetic smokers. The periodontal status was evaluated by four clinical parameters: Plaque Index (PI), Bleeding Index (BI), Probing Pocket Depth (PD) and Clinical Attachment Loss (CAL). Results: The results were revealed the comparisons between the mean values of clinical parameters; PI was highly significant in G2 compared to G1 and G3. BI was significant in G2 versus to G1, and highly significant in G4 contrast to G1and G3. PD was significantly increased in G2 than G1, and highly significant in G4 related to G1, G2 and G3. CAL was significant in G4 compared to G3, highly significantly increased in G4 than G1 and G2, whereas, high significant in G4 contrast to G3. Severity forms of periodontitis in each group categorized into; mild, moderate and severe; G1 (60.72 %, 31.01%, 8.27 %), G2 (33.21%, 50.67 %, 16.12 %), G3 (37.02 %, 49.32 %, 13.66 %) and G4 (9.23 %, 50.42 %, 40.35 %). Severity of periodontitis in whole population; mild (35.04 %), moderate (45.36 %) and severe (19.60%). Conclusion: The clinical periodontal parameters represent poor periodontal conditions within the population, and presence of smoking and diabetes mellitus exaggerate the severity of periodontitis. Furthermore, widespread survey study is needed to clarify the percentage of prevalence, incidence and severity of periodontitis.
Evidence - Based Periodontology - A Review
Periodontology has a rich history and a strong passion for science. The substantial and extensive periodontal information base, developed over the years, has provided a rational basis for choosing the best treatment for patients. When appropriately evaluated and carefully managed, the integration of emerging technology into practice can improve health and enhance the quality of life. Since the last AAP Workshop in 1996, great technological advances in the areas of data access, retrieval, and management have been made. Dentists need to make clinical decisions based on limited scientific evidence. In clinical practice, a clinician must weigh a myriad of evidences every day. Evidence-Based Periodontology aims to facilitate such an approach and it offers a bridge from science to clinical practice. This article will review the concepts of Evidence-Based Periodontology, introduce the systematic review as a research tool and examine how evidence can both inform and benefit healthcare in periodontology.
International Endodontic Journal, 2022
High‐quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well‐structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be applied objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately defined,...