Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35369790›Full record

SynthesisJDR clinical and translational research2023

Assessment of the Quality of Current American Dental Association Clinical Practice Guidelines.

S D London, S Chamut, P Fontelo, T Iafolla, B A Dye

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JDR clinical and translational research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Chinese introduction to the Preferred Reporting Items for Randomized Trials in Endodontics 2020 checklist].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Social Justice in Dental Research.JDR clinical and translational research · 2023
    Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

S D LondonOffice of Science Policy and Analysis, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
S ChamutDepartment of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
P FonteloApplied Clinical Informatics Branch, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
T IafollaOffice of Science Policy and Analysis, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
B A DyeOffice of Science Policy and Analysis, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

Applied Clinical InformaticsZIHLM010016 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI LYNCH, PAUL · 2021 to 2025
$36.5M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe American Dental Association (ADA) defines evidence-based dentistry (EBD) as "an approach to oral healthcare that requires the judicious integration of systematic assessments of clinically relevant scientific evidence, relating to the oral and medical condition and history, with the dentist's clinical expertise and the patient's treatment needs and preferences." Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options. Therefore, ADA CPGs are the most rigorous examples of EBD to inform clinical practice. CPGs should be of the highest level of quality to ensure the appropriateness and timeliness of clinical recommendations.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to measure the methodological rigor and transparency of the ADA CPGs.

methodsEach ADA CPG was appraised by 4 independent assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Quantitative quality scores were obtained for 6 domains and overall quality. In addition, assessors provided a qualitative analysis by providing comments for each item and an appraisal of the full recommendation.

resultsA quality score of 75% was used as the threshold for high-quality guidelines. Using this metric, 6 of the current 10 current ADA CPGs were considered to be of high quality, 1 was slightly below the quality threshold, and 3 were considered marginal. Even among those evaluated to be high quality in overall assessment, certain domains did not reach the quality threshold of 75%.

conclusionOverall, the ADA CPGs collectively provide high-quality guidance for the clinician. While the AGREE appraisal guidelines have been used in CPG development since 2016, there is still room for improvement in certain domains (i.e., stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence). KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this study summarize the methodological rigor and transparency of the 10 current ADA clinical practice guidelines. Since adoption of AGREE standards (2016), CPGs have been uniformly of high quality. The quality of older CPGs was somewhat lower but overall deemed acceptable. Thus, ADA CPGs may be used with confidence to inform practitioners of treatment options supported by rigorous evidence-based dentistry standards. However, there is still room for improvement in methodological quality.

Indexed as

American Dental AssociationHealth FacilitiesHumansKnowledgeMental ProcessesUnited Statesconflict of interestevidence-based dentistry/health carepractice guidelines as topicpractice patternsquality assurancerisk factor(s)

Identifiers

PMID35369790
PMCPMC10029135

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.