Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34609240›Full record

SynthesisJDR clinical and translational research2022

Unusual Findings in Trials Evaluating Adjuncts to Scaling and Root Planing: Meta-analysis (Part 1).

J C Gunsolley, K Al-Abedalla, M Shaqman, E Ioannidou

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JDR clinical and translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

J C GunsolleyDepartment of Periodontics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry, Richmond, VA, USA.
K Al-AbedallaDivision of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, UCONN Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
M ShaqmanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oral Medicine and Periodontology, School of Dentistry, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0003-0630-6863
E IoannidouDivision of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, UCONN Health, Farmington, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1954-5900

Funding

Treat-to-target and personalized approach to periodontal therapyR34DE027410 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCH OF MED/DNT · PI IOANNIDOU, EFTHIMIA · 2018 to 2018
$271k
NIDCR NIH HHS R34 DE027410
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA number of studies in patients with periodontitis have compared scaling and root planning (SRP) combined with an adjunctive treatment to SRP alone. Within that literature, an array of studies with overlapping investigators has consistently yielded substantially greater effects of adjunctive treatments than had been previously noted. This report investigates discrepancies between that cluster of research and the most recent American Dental Association (ADA) systematic review.

methodsThis review was preregistered at https://osf.io/4meyd/. A search using the Scopus platform identified 32 articles published from 2010 to 2017 by investigators affiliated with the Government Dental College and Research Institute (GDCRI) in Bangalore, India. The primary outcome used in this meta-analysis was the change in clinical attachment level (CAL) after 6 mo. Effect sizes were estimated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software after categorizing agents into groups based on pharmacologic similarity.

resultsThe search identified 32 studies encompassing 5 sets of adjunctive agents. Across the GDCRI studies, the CAL averaged 1.67 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-1.91 mm), substantially exceeding values reported in the ADA review (mean: 0.39 mm, 95% CI: 0.27-0.51 mm). For categories of studies in which comparable subgroup estimates were available, the evaluations yielded overlapping estimates of SRP alone, but CAL estimates were discrepant for both locally delivered antimicrobials (GDCRI studies: mean: 1.45 mm, 95% CI: 0.63-2.27 mm; ADA review: mean: 0.38 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 -0.60 mm) and systemic antibiotics (GDCRI studies: mean: 1.35 mm, 95% CI: 0.97-1.73 mm; ADA review: mean: 0.39 mm, 95% CI: 0.21-0.57 mm).

conclusionIn the literature on adjunctive agents supplementing SRP, findings from investigators linked to GDCRI stand out as having significantly more favorable estimated effects. Meanwhile, some agents studied by GDCRI-linked investigators have not been investigated by other researchers. In the absence of a clear explanation for discrepant results, it is recommended that unusually favorable reported effects of adjunctive agents be viewed with caution. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The present meta-analysis observed an unusually large effect size of adjunctive agents to scaling and root planning in studies conducted by the same research group. These results were not consistent with trials on adjunctive agents and previous reports. As this research group has exclusively tested most of the agents, their results must be viewed with caution until other independent groups replicate the studies and reproduce the effect size.

Indexed as

Dental ScalingPeriodontitisAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansIndiaRoot PlaningUnited StatesAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibacterial agentsperiodontal attachment lossperiodontal debridementperiodontal pocketperiodontitissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34609240
PMCPMC9207337

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.