ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2017
What is the methodological quality of published dental implant guidelines?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sourcesSix implant dentistry journals with impact factors (2014) assigned by Journal Citation Reports (Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, European Journal of Oral Implants, The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, Journal of Oral Implantology, and Implant Dentistry) and the Medline database.Study selectionTwo reviewers independently selected guidelines published between May 2009 and February 2016.Data evaluationFollowing training four reviewers independently applied the Agree II tool (http://www.agreetrust.org/) to the selected guidelines with disagreements being resolved by discussion. Scores for the six domains of the AGREE II tool were presented as median percentages of the maximum possible with their respective interquartile ranges (IQR). Domain scores were divided into consensus guidelines, and consensus guidelines with systematic reviews.ResultsTwenty-seven consensus guidelines were included, with 19 contributing to the comparisons between groups. Twenty-six guidelines were developed after meetings in Europe, with the European Association of Osseointergration developing the most guidelines (n=9). The number of authors for the guidelines varied from 2-27 (median, 9). For consensus guidelines only domain four scored highest. Guidelines with systematic review scored higher for all domains with the exception of domain five (Table 1).ConclusionsThere is room to improve the quality of consensus guidelines published in highly ranked implant dentistry journals. Clinicians' and researchers' development of consensus guidelines to improve clinical treatment with dental implants is laudable. However, as for primary and secondary research, these guidelines should adhere to high and transparent standards. The AGREE II instrument can be used as a reference for the development of high-quality guidelines to provide unbiased and adequate clinical recommendations to clinicians working with dental implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.