SynthesisJournal of clinical periodontology2026
Outcome Measures and ID-COSM Reporting Standards in Alveolar Ridge Augmentation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical periodontology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate outcome measures in clinical studies on alveolar ridge augmentation (ARA) and map them to the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) framework and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) terminology.
methodsA systematic search was carried out across four databases through June 2025. Randomised and non-randomised clinical trials, prospective clinical studies, cohort studies and pilot clinical studies evaluating ARA performed before or simultaneously with implant placement were included. Extracted outcomes were mapped to ID-COSM domains, subdomains and specific outcomes, and all were classified into FDA-style outcome types. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Domain 4 of RoB 2.0/ROBINS-I, and associations between RoB and completeness of outcome reporting were analysed with Spearman's rank correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05).
resultsFour hundred and twenty-nine studies were included, predominantly randomised controlled trials (56.4%). Less than half of the studies fulfilled the mandatory ID-COSM domains (47.6%), and none reported all nine subdomains. For mandatory outcomes, surgical complications (52.7%) and implant placement feasibility (48.3%) were more frequently reported than bone dimensional changes (33.8%), and peri-implant bone stability was reported in only 11.0% of studies. For FDA categorisation, clinician-reported outcomes (86.3%) and biomarkers (87.7%) predominated, while patient-reported outcomes were reported in 31.9% of studies. Observer-reported or performance outcomes were completely absent. Lower risk of bias was associated with more complete reporting of outcomes across domains, subdomains and specific outcomes (p = 0.032, 0.017 and 0.009, respectively).
conclusionOutcome reporting for ARA trials is highly heterogeneous and poorly aligned with the standardised minimum outcomes recommended by ID-COSM and FDA categorisation.
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.