Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24947268›Full record

SynthesisJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2014

A systematic review of outcome measurements and quality of studies evaluating fixed tooth-supported restorations.

Devangkumar Rajnikant Patel, Tim O'Brien, Aviva Petrie, Haralampos Petridis

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Informed Consent from a Historical, Societal, Ethical, Legal, and Practical Perspective.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Devangkumar Rajnikant PatelProsthodontics Unit, Department of Restorative Dentistry, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK.
Tim O'Brien
Aviva Petrie
Haralampos Petridis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to review clinical studies of fixed tooth-supported prostheses, and to assess the quality of evidence with an emphasis on the assessment of the reporting of outcome measurements. Multiple hypotheses were generated to compare the effect of study type on different outcome modifiers and to compare the quality of publications before and after January 2005. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn electronic search was conducted using specific databases (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, Cochrane Library) through July 2012. This was complemented by hand searching the past 10 years of issues of the Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Prosthodontics, and the International Journal of Prosthodontics. All experimental and observational clinical studies evaluating survival, success, failure, and complications of tooth-supported extracoronal fixed partial dentures, crowns, and onlays were included. No restrictions on age or follow-up time were placed.

resultsThe electronic search generated 14,869 papers, of which 206 papers were included for full-text review. Hand-searching added 23 papers. Inclusion criteria were met by 182 papers and were included for the review. The majority were retrospective studies. Only 8 (4.4%) were randomized controlled trials. The majority of the studies measured survival and failure, and few studies recorded data on success; however, more than 60% of the studies failed to define survival, success, and failure. Many studies did not use any standardized criteria for assessment of the quality of the restorations and, when standardized criteria were used, they were modified, thereby not allowing for comparisons with other studies. There was an increase of 21.8% in the number of studies evaluating outcome measurements of all-ceramic restorations in past 8 years.

conclusionsProsthodontic literature presents with a reduced percentage of RCTs compared to other disciplines in dentistry. The overall quality of recording prosthodontic outcome measurements has not improved greatly in the past 8 years.

Indexed as

CrownsDental AbutmentsDenture, Partial, FixedInlaysDental Restoration FailureHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurvival AnalysisTreatment Outcomecomplicationsevidence-based dentistrystandardized criteriaSuccesssurvivaltreatment failuretreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID24947268
PMCPMC4491372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.