ArticleInternational endodontic journal2022
Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on non-surgical root canal treatment: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set.
Article in International endodontic journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of Root Canal Fillings and Procedural Errors for In Vivo Studies Prepared in Different Clinical Settings and with Rotary Systems: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- Danish endodontic practice-based research network: follow-up data.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- An overlooked connection: oral health status in patients with chronic diseases.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
- Expert consensus on odontogenic maxillary sinusitis multi-disciplinary treatment.International journal of oral science · 2024Review
- Scanning Electron Microscopic Analysis of Deformation of TruNatomy File Systems: An Ex-vivo Study.Cureus · 2023Article
- Post-Operative Quality of Life after Single-Visit Root Canal Treatment Employing Three Different Instrumentation Techniques-An Institutional Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on revitalization: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set.International endodontic journal · 2022Article
- Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on non-surgical root canal treatment: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set.International endodontic journal · 2022Article
- Spatiotemporal quantification of gingival crevicular fluid NLRP3 expression during non-surgical endodontic management of pulp necrosis with symptomatic apical periodontitis: A prospective case-control analysis.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies related to non-surgical root canal treatment are amongst the most frequently performed clinical studies in endodontics. However, heterogeneity in reporting outcomes and lack of standardization is a significant challenge to evidence synthesis and guideline development.
objectivesThe aims of the present scoping review were to (a) identify outcomes reported in systematic reviews evaluating non-surgical root canal treatment; (b) identify how and when the reported outcomes were measured; (c) assess possible selective reporting bias in the included studies. The information obtained in this study should inform the development of a core outcome set (COS) for non-surgical root canal treatment. METHODOLOGY: Structured literature searches were performed to identify systematic reviews on non-surgical root canal treatments published in English between January 1990 and December 2020. Two reviewers undertook study selection and data extraction. Outcomes were categorized according to a healthcare taxonomy into five core areas (survival, clinical/physiological changes, life impact, resource use, and adverse events). The outcome measurement tools and length of follow-up were recorded.
resultsSeventy-five systematic reviews were included, of which 40 included meta-analyses. Most reviews reported on physiological and clinical outcomes, primarily pain and/or radiographic assessment of periapical status, and a variety of measurement tools and scales were used. Few reviews focused on tooth survival, life impact, resources, and adverse events. The heterogeneity amongst the reviews was large on all parameters. Less than 40% of the reviews assessed the risk of selective reporting. DISCUSSION: Overall aims of the included reviews were highly heterogenic; thus, outcomes and how they were measured also varied considerably. Patient-centred outcomes and the use of resources were rarely reported on.
conclusionsMost studies reported on physiological and clinical outcomes, in particular pain and/or radiographic healing. Measurement tools, scales, thresholds, and follow-up periods varied greatly within each outcome, making comparison across studies complicated. Less than 40% of the reviews assessed risk of selective reporting; thus, selective bias could not be ruled out. The presented information on reported outcomes, measurement tools and scales, and length of follow-up may guide the planning of future research and inform the development of a COS for non-surgical root canal treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35969087What 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.