Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39018288›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Systematic review to evaluate accuracy studies of the diagnostic criteria for periodontitis in pregnant women.

Sarah Dos Santos Conceição, Josicélia Estrela Tuy Batista, Simone Seixas da Cruz, Isaac Suzart Gomes-Filho, Alexandre Marcelo Hintz, Julita Maria Freitas Coelho, Johelle de Santana Passos-Soares, Peter Michael Loomer, Amanda Oliveira Lyrio, Elivan Silva Souza and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Sarah Dos Santos ConceiçãoFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil.
Josicélia Estrela Tuy BatistaDepartment of Health, Feira de Santana State University, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.
Simone Seixas da CruzDepartment of Health, Feira de Santana State University, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.
Isaac Suzart Gomes-FilhoDepartment of Health, Feira de Santana State University, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4270-8491
Alexandre Marcelo HintzDepartment of Health, Feira de Santana State University, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.
Julita Maria Freitas CoelhoDepartment of Health, Feira de Santana State University, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.
Johelle de Santana Passos-SoaresDepartment of Health, Feira de Santana State University, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.
Peter Michael LoomerSchool of Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America.
Amanda Oliveira LyrioFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil.
Elivan Silva SouzaFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil.
Ana Cláudia Morais Godoy FigueiredoEpidemiology Surveillance, Federal District Health State Secretariat, Brasília, Bahia, Distrito Federal, Brazil.
Mauricio Gomes PereiraFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PeriodontitisFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Complications

Identifiers

PMID39018288
PMCPMC11253960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.