This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine alone and 0.12% chlorhexidine in combination with toothbrushing to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. The Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature, PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Scopus, LIVIVO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, OpenThesis, and Open Access Thesis and Dissertations databases were used. Only randomized controlled trials without restrictions on the year or language of publication were included. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model estimated the combined relative risk (RR). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Initially, 2,337 studies were identified, of which 4 were considered in the systematic review and 3 in the meta-analysis (total sample: 796 patients). The studies were published between 2009 and 2017. All eligible studies had a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the risk of VAP was 24% lower in patients receiving chlorhexidine combined with toothbrushing than in those receiving chlorhexidine alone (RR: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-1.06), with moderate certainty of evidence and without statistical significance. In conclusion, considering the limitations of this study, a standard protocol for the prevention of VAP is not yet recommended. More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to draw strong conclusions. However, considering that toothbrushing is a simple intervention, it should be a common practice in mechanically ventilated patients, especially among patients with coronavirus disease.
Background Primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic clinical condition of idiopathic mainly characterized by pain and a burning sensation in the oral cavity. The application of laser at low intensity therapy is a treatment option. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of laser therapy in treating symptoms of burning mouth syndrome. Material and Methods The study was formulated according to the PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. Seven databases were used as primary sources of research. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included. The efficacy of the therapy was estimated comparing the values of the visual and numerical scales of pain before and after laser treatment, through qualitative analysis. Results The search resulted in 348 records and only eight filled the eligibility criteria and were included. All studies evaluated pain and / or a burning sensation considering a time interval of two to ten weeks. The total sample consisted of 314 patients submitted to treatment: 123 from the control group, who participated with laser off or with the tip blocked, and 191 from the intervention group, treated with low-level laser therapy. The female gender stood out and the average age of the participants was 60.89 years. The main symptoms reported were pain and a burning sensation in the oral mucosa and tongue. The parameters adopted by the authors for laser treatment were diverse and the variables were not fully described in the published studies. Visual analog and numerical scales were used to assess symptoms and only three studies showed statistical significance. Conclusions It is suggested that laser therapy may be an effective alternative in the treatment of BMS. New randomized clinical trials should consider well-established protocols to better understand the efficacy of laser therapy without confounding the effects. Key words: Efficacy, systematic review, burning mouth syndrome, low level laser therapy.
al. Preemptive use of intravenous ibuprofen to reduce postoperative pain after lower third molar surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clinics (Sao Paulo).
Background This study aimed to search for scientific evidence concerning the accuracy of computer-assisted analysis for diagnosing odontogenic cysts. Material and Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statements and considering eleven databases, including the grey literature. Protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020189349). The PECO strategy was used to define the eligibility criteria and only studies involving diagnostic accuracy were included. Their risk of bias was investigated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Results Out of 437 identified citations, five papers, published between 2006 and 2019, fulfilled the criteria and were included in this systematic review. A total of 5,264 images from 508 lesions, classified as radicular cyst, odontogenic keratocyst, lateral periodontal cyst, glandular odontogenic cyst, or dentigerous cyst, were analyzed. All selected articles scored low risk of bias. In three studies, the best performances were achieved when the two subtypes of odontogenic keratocysts (solitary or syndromic) were pooled together, the case-wise analysis showing a success rate of 100% for odontogenic keratocysts and radicular cysts, in one of them. In two studies, the dentigerous cyst was associated with the majority of misclassifications, and its omission from the dataset improved significantly the classification rates. Conclusions The overall evaluation showed all studies presented high accuracy rates of computer-aided systems in classifying odontogenic cysts in digital images of histological tissue sections. However, due to the heterogeneity of the studies, a meta-analysis evaluating the outcomes of interest was not performed and a pragmatic recommendation about their use is not possible. Key words: Computer-assisted diagnosis, computer-assisted image analysis, computer-assisted image processing, odontogenic cysts, keratocysts, radicular cysts.
Este tutorial esta disponível em vídeo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgAOoBdjsCo&t=1s.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.