ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2024
Critical Evaluation of Global Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines for Dentistry Published during the First 2 Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Review in International journal of dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) encouraged immediate actions by governments and healthcare associations across the world to flatten the curve and prevent health systems from being overburdened. As dentistry comprises aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), which could increase the risk of infection, various guidelines were issued for dental services which focused on infection prevention and control (IPC) measures for COVID-19. This systematic review focuses on dental IPC guidelines, with the aim of comparing these guidelines against a gold standard. Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist was employed. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were constructed. Information sources comprised Google Scholar, PubMed, and a manual search from December 2019 to December 2021. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was used. Consensus scoring was applied for all guidelines. Results: A total 61 guidelines were included in the review. The UK national guideline was used as a gold standard as it ranked the highest AGREE score (75 out of 84) and thus was established for comparison with each of the included guidelines. Overall, 40% of the included guidelines had a high consensus score in relation to the UK national guideline. Conclusion: This systematic review highlighted the variability in content and quality of advice given by different organizations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in their efforts to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission in dentistry. Establishing a single worldwide fast-acting dental organization would ensure that high-quality standardized guidance is available, to enhance health equality and worldwide dental clinical standards.
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.