SynthesisClinical oral investigations2018
Dental caries prevention in children and adolescents: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for management of impacted maxillary central incisors: a systematic review.Evidence-based dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Emergency and sequalae management of traumatic dental injuries: a systematic survey of clinical practice guidelines.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Assessment of Trends in Non-Restorative and Preventative Dental Treatment Pre- and Post-COVID-19: A Health Informatics Pilot Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Developing an AI-based application for caries index detection on intraoral photographs.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Treatments for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023Article
- A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Caries Prevention following the AGREE II Checklist.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- QUALITY APPRAISAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES ON PROVISION OF DENTAL SERVICES DURING THE FIRST MONTHS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.The journal of evidence-based dental practice · 2021Article
- Screening and diagnosis of oral cancer: a critical quality appraisal of clinical guidelines.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for dental caries prevention in children and adolescents MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a systematic search of CPGs on caries preventive measures between 2005 and 2016. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, TripDatabase, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health. We included CPGs with recommendations on sealants, fluorides and oral hygiene. Three reviewers independently assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardised scores for the six domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. Also, we calculated the overall agreement among calibrated reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsTwenty-two CPGs published were selected from a total of 637 references. Thirteen were in English and nine in Spanish. The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.90; 95%CI 0.89-0.92). The mean score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 89.6 ± 12%; Stakeholder involvement 55.0 ± 15.6%; Rigour of development 64.9 ± 21.2%; Clarity of presentation 84.8 ± 14.1%; Applicability 30.6 ± 31.5% and Editorial independence 59.3 ± 25.5%. Thirteen CPGs (59.1%) were assessed as "recommended", eight (36.4%) "recommended with modifications" and one (4.5%) "not recommended".
conclusionsThe overall quality of CPGs in caries prevention was moderate. The domains with greater deficiencies were Applicability, Stakeholder involvement and Editorial independence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should use the best available CPGs in dental caries prevention to provide optimal oral health care to patients.
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.