ArticleInternational endodontic journal2022
Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on revitalization: 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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlation between pulp sensibility and magnetic resonance signal intensity following regenerative endodontic procedures in mature necrotic teeth- a retrospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Machine learning models for prognosis prediction in regenerative endodontic procedures.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on revitalization: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set.International endodontic journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRevitalization is a type of regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) that offers the exciting prospect of revitalizing damaged tissue, therefore improving outcomes for non-vital immature teeth. To evaluate its potential, there needs to be consistency in outcome reporting of clinical studies investigating revitalization to allow for evidence synthesis and inform clinical decision making.
objectivesThe aim of this scoping review was to identify outcomes that are reported in systematic reviews on revitalization including how and when these outcomes are measured. Additionally, evidence of selective reporting bias in the reviews was assessed.
methodsA comprehensive electronic search of healthcare databases and grey literature was conducted to identify systematic reviews published in the English language reporting outcomes of revitalization in permanent immature teeth. There was no restriction on the date of publication. Outcome data was extracted by four reviewers independently and mapped with a healthcare taxonomy into five core areas: survival, clinical/physiological changes, life impact, resource use and adverse events. Selective reporting bias and how it was measured was assessed independently by two reviewers.
resultsTwenty-six systematic reviews were included in this scoping review. There was lack of standardization in reporting and significant heterogeneity across reviews in outcome endpoints. The outcomes reported could be aligned within the five core areas of the taxonomy including tooth survival which was reported in nine reviews. Patient-reported outcomes were generally limited and no review reported on Oral Health Related Quality of Life. Many of the reviews reporting on randomized control trials were at low risk of selective reporting bias whilst other study designs were at higher risk. DISCUSSION: Consistency in outcome reporting is necessary to realize the benefits of old but particularly novel therapies. Data from this review confirmed heterogeneity in reporting outcomes of revitalization and the need for development of a core outcome set (COS).
conclusionsSeveral important outcomes including survival, root development, tooth discolouration and periapical healing have been identified in this review which could inform the development of a COS in this area. REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database (registration no. 1879).
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.