ReviewMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2026
Review of clinical practice guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of third molars. Evaluation of adherence to AGREE II publication guideline.
Review in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2026. 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
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPG) are developed to summarize the available evidence for healthcare professionals and standardize decisions in the clinical setting. For them to be useful, they must be generated following systematic methods, have high scope and applicability, present information clearly, and be updated every five years. The main aim of this review was to evaluate the available CPGs on the diagnosis and treatment of third molars (3M) using the AGREE II instrument to assess their quality and strength of recommendations. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn electronic search was conducted using the PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. Additionally, a manual search was performed by international health organizations and dental and surgical associations. The inclusion criterion was CPG published in the last 5 years on the diagnosis and treatment of 3M. The quality of the guidelines was analyzed using the AGREE II instrument.
results14 CPGs were identified; However, only seven met the inclusion criteria. The guidelines from the Spanish Society of Oral Surgery (SECIB) and the Malaysia Oral Health Programme (MOHP) were considered high-quality. In contrast, guidelines from the German Medical Association (DGMKG), French Society of Stomatology Maxillo-Facial Surgery and Oral Surgery (SFSCMFCO) and Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE) were rated as moderate quality and recommended with modifications. The Finnish Medical and Dental Society (FMDS) and Dutch Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (NVMKA) did not meet the minimum quality standards.
conclusionsThe AGREE II analysis reveals a need for substantial improvement in third molar CPGs. Only two guidelines were rated as high-quality, with most being outdated or soon to be. Regular updates by guideline-developing organizations are essential to ensure accurate and relevant clinical recommendations.
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.