SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2024
Quality analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for management of impacted maxillary central incisors: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Barriers to and Facilitators for the Use of Research Evidence in Oral Health Policies and Guidelines: An International Qualitative Study.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2026Article
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
purposeTo assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for management of impacted central incisors.
methodsSearch was performed in PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, and guideline-focused databases/repositories on 15-09-2022 without any limitations and was updated on 15-07-2023. Grey literature search was also performed. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection and data extraction. Quality assessment of the included CPG was performed by four independent appraisers using the AGREE-II instrument. The degree of agreement among the appraisers was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsFive CPG were included in the review. The Ministry of Health, Malaysia (MHM) guideline obtained the highest scores in all six domains of AGREE-II and an overall score of 73% demonstrating the "highest" quality. The remaining four guidelines obtained overall "low-quality" scores ranging from 34.57-37.52%. The ICC scores ranged from 0.530 to 0.990 for various domains of AGREE-II.
conclusionMHM guidelines demonstrated high-quality scores in domains of 'scope and purpose', 'clarity of presentation', 'applicability domain', and 'editorial independence', while others were found to have moderate or low quality. This review identified areas that can be addressed by future guideline developers to avoid these discrepancies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38200327What 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.