SynthesisPloS one2024
Systematic review to evaluate accuracy studies of the diagnostic criteria for periodontitis in pregnant women.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diversity of criteria used in the diagnosis of periodontitis in pregnant women makes it difficult to define and compare the disease. Using a systematic review, this study evaluated the accuracy of criteria for diagnosing periodontitis in pregnant women. Searches were carried out in the databases: Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, Lilacs, ProQuest, and CINAHL. Validation studies of the criteria used for diagnosing periodontitis met the inclusion criteria. The study steps were performed by three independent reviewers. A qualitative synthesis of the included articles was carried out and the quality methodological analysis using the QUADAS-2 instrument. The assessment of the quality of the evidence was obtained through the GRADE tool. A total of 592 records were identified, of which only 6 made up this systematic review. The included studies analyzed different criteria for diagnosing periodontitis, evaluating 3,005 pregnant women. The criteria selected as a test presented results equivalent to the performance of those recognized as the gold standard. The self-reported criteria were of lower diagnostic accuracy. A major limitation of this review was the small number of primary studies that evaluated clinical diagnosis of periodontitis in pregnant women, which was highly heterogeneous, making it impossible to carry out accuracy meta-analysis and additional analyzes. There is a lack of consensus on the criteria for the diagnosis of periodontitis, with great variability in the accuracy and prevalence of the disease in pregnant women.
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.