Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39775155›Full record

SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines and position statements on vital pulp therapy: a systematic review.

Akshat Sachdeva, Vishal Kumar, Amrita Chawla, Harsh Priya, Vijay Kumar, Sidhartha Sharma, Ajay Logani

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

7 authors.

Akshat SachdevaDivision of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5568-636X
Vishal KumarDivision of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9500-3770
Amrita ChawlaDivision of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. dr.amritachawla@gmail.com.
Harsh PriyaDivision of Public Health Dentistry, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6410-2888
Vijay KumarDivision of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Sidhartha SharmaDivision of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Ajay LoganiDivision of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate different Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and Position Statements (PS) on Vital Pulp Therapy (VPT) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Recommendation EXcellence (AGREE-REX) tools.

methodsTwo authors performed the initial search using a set of keywords in six databases. Only CPGs and PS on VPT published during the past five years were included. The included CPGs were appraised independently by six appraisers. AGREE II tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality, and AGREE REX was used to evaluate the quality of recommendations. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used as a reliability indicator among assessors.

resultsFour published CPGs were shortlisted. Guidelines established by the European Society of Endodontology (ESE, 2019), German Society of Endodontology and Dental Traumatology (GSEDT, 2019), American Association of Endodontists (AAE, 2021), and Australian Dental Association (ADA, 2021) were analyzed. The ESE PS obtained the highest average score overall. DISCUSSION: Endodontists must adhere to clinical practice guidelines established by specialty associations or societies. Improving the domains "Rigour of Development" and "Applicability" is necessary to enhance the overall strength of the guidelines. It is imperative to prevent discouragement and confusion among practitioners regarding VPT procedures by ensuring cohesiveness among various endodontic associations.

conclusionThis assessment aids in determining the standard of CPGs among different specialized societies and associations. It also highlights the essential future actions and initiatives needed to establish robust evidence-based standards on VPT. REGISTRATION: The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023429673).

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicEvidence-Based DentistryHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.