Reporting of sources of funding in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry

Faggion, Clóvis Mariano; Atieh, Momen A.; Zanicotti, Diogo Godoy

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.47

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, these SRs failed to show combined results due to the lack of studies, uniformity in patients’ status, and treatments. All in all, approximately only 10 SRs regarding the efficacy of interventions were published in the whole field of periodontology and implant dentistry each year before 2010 . In the field of clinical epidemiology, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement was introduced in 2009 to help SR authors prepare a transparent and reproducible account of their SRs .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All in all, approximately only 10 SRs regarding the efficacy of interventions were published in the whole field of periodontology and implant dentistry each year before 2010. 19 In the field of clinical epidemiology, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was introduced in 2009 to help SR authors prepare a transparent and reproducible account of their SRs. 20 This statement has been used as the fundamental framework for conducting SRs since then.…”

Section: Focus Question and Searching Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methodological quality and risk‐of‐bias assessments in systematic reviews of treatments for peri‐implantitis

Hasuike

Ueno²,

Nagashima

et al. 2019

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias in systematic reviews (SRs) on the effectiveness of peri‐implantitis treatments. Material and Methods We searched four electronic databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE. Previous SRs focusing on peri‐implantitis treatment published between 2010 and 2017 were identified. After literature screening, eligible SRs were qualitatively assessed using two validated instruments: Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS). The characteristics and findings of SRs are also reported. Results A total of 23 SRs formed the basis of this study. Of the 23, six included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. Overall, the AMSTAR2 assessment revealed three studies with high and six studies with low methodological quality, and all the other SRs were judged as having critically low methodological quality. ROBIS revealed only one Cochrane review with a low risk of bias and the others with a high risk of bias. In particular, the assessment of non‐randomized studies (NRSIs), appropriateness of ROB assessment, and meta‐analysis did not satisfy the criteria in AMSTAR2 assessment. Furthermore, there were a few SRs that interpreted and discussed the results of risk of bias (ROB) and heterogeneity assessment, together with the impact of treatment. Conclusions Due to the lack of head‐to‐head comparisons conducted in RCTs, review authors need to use other sources of evidence, such as clinical control trials (CCTs), cohort studies (CS), clinical research (CR), and animal studies. The end result is the presentation of low‐quality evidence, with high ROB. Several SRs conducted network meta‐analysis as an alternative to head‐to‐head conventional meta‐analysis of RCTs. We suggest that the best methods to generate, access, and assess evidence in situations where RCT evidence is lacking should be discussed on an urgent basis.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Focus Question and Searching Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological quality and risk‐of‐bias assessments in systematic reviews of treatments for peri‐implantitis

Hasuike

Ueno²,

Nagashima

et al. 2019

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The risk of bias in results due to funding was evaluated independently from the quality assessment through the declaration of funding sources and conflicts of interest, 14 wherein score 0 = a study with low potential for bias; score 1 = any conflicts of interest declared relating to industry funding outside of the current research publication; score 2 = if the study was funded by industry; and score 3 = a high potential for bias. A score of 1 or 2 was considered to indicate a moderate potential for bias.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of prehospital workflow optimization on treatment delays and clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Chowdhury

Baskar

Bhaskar

2021

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The prehospital phase is critical in ensuring that stroke treatment is delivered quickly and is a major source of time delay. This study sought to identify and examine prehospital stroke workflow optimizations (PSWOs) and their impact on improving health systems, reperfusion rates, treatment delays, and clinical outcomes. Methods The authors conducted a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis by extracting data from several research databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, and Embase) published since 2005. We used appropriate key search terms to identify clinical studies concerning prehospital workflow optimization, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results The authors identified 27 articles that looked at the impact of prehospital workflow optimizations on time and treatment parameters; 26 were included in the meta‐analysis. The PSWO were subgrouped into three categories: improved intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) triage, large‐vessel occlusion (LVO) bypass, and mobile stroke unit (MSU). The salient findings are as follows: improved IVT triage led to significantly improved rates of IVT (relative risk [RR] = 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 2.75); however, MSU did not (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.52). Improved IVT triage (standard mean difference [SMD] = –0.82, 95% CI = –1.32 to –0.32), LVO bypass (SMD = –0.80, 95% CI = –1.13 to –0.47), and MSU (SMD = –0.87, 95% CI = –1.57 to –0.17) were found to significantly reduce door‐to‐needle time for IVT. MSU was found to significantly reduce call‐to‐needle (SMD = –1.41, 95% CI = –1.94 to –0.88) and onset‐to‐needle (SMD = –1.15, 95% CI = –1.74 to –0.56) times for IVT. MSU additionally demonstrated significant reduction in door‐to‐perfusion (SMD = –0.72, 95% CI = –1.32 to –0.12) as well as call‐to‐perfusion (SMD = –0.73, 95% CI = –1.08 to –0.38) times for EVT. Finally, PSWO did not demonstrate significant improvements in rates of good functional outcome (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.12) or mortality at 90 days (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.31). Conclusions This systematic review and meta‐analysis found that PSWO significantly improves several time metrics related to stroke treatment leading to improvement in IVT reperfusion rates. Thus, the implementation of these measures in stroke networks is a promising avenue to improve an often‐neglected aspect of the stroke response. However, the limited available data suggest functional outcomes and mortality are not significantly improved by PSWO; hence, further studies and improvement strategies vis‐à‐vis PSWOs are warranted.

show abstract

“…The total score for each study ranged from 0 to 14 points [ 18 ]. The risk of bias in results due to funding was evaluated, independently from the quality assessment, through the declaration of funding sources and conflicts of interest using the previously reported scoring test [ 19 ]. A score of 1–2 was considered to indicate a moderate potential for bias.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic capacity of hyperdense middle cerebral artery sign in anterior circulation acute ischaemic stroke patients receiving reperfusion therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pre-intervention CT imaging-based biomarkers, such as hyperdense middle cerebral artery sign (HMCAS) may have a role in acute ischaemic stroke prognostication. However, the clinical utility of HMCAS in settings of reperfusion therapy and the level of prognostic association is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the association of HMCAS sign with clinical outcomes and its prognostic capacity in acute ischaemic stroke patients treated with reperfusion therapy. Prospective and retrospective studies from the following databases were retrieved from EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane. Association of HMCAS with functional outcome, symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (sICH) and mortality were investigated. The random effect model was used to calculate the risk ratio (RR). Subgroup analyses were performed for subgroups of patients receiving thrombolysis (tPA), mechanical thrombectomy (EVT) and/or combined therapy (tPA + EVT). HMCAS significantly increased the rate of poor functional outcome by 1.43-fold in patients (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.30–1.57; p < 0.0001) without any significant differences in sICH rates (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.68–1.23; p = 0.546) and mortality (RR 1.34; 95% CI 0.72–2.51; p = 354) in patients with positive HMCAS as compared to negative HMCAS. In subgroup analyses, significant association between HMCAS and 90 days functional outcome was observed in patients receiving tPA (RR 1.53; 95% CI 1.40–1.67; p < 0.0001) or both therapies (RR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08–1.80; p = 0.010). This meta-analysis demonstrated that pre-treatment HMCAS increases risk of poor functional outcomes. However, its prognostic sensitivity and specificity in predicting long-term functional outcome, mortality and sICH after reperfusion therapy is poor. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13760-021-01720-3.

show abstract

Reporting of sources of funding in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry

Cited by 16 publications

References 35 publications

Methodological quality and risk‐of‐bias assessments in systematic reviews of treatments for peri‐implantitis

Methodological quality and risk‐of‐bias assessments in systematic reviews of treatments for peri‐implantitis

Effect of prehospital workflow optimization on treatment delays and clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Prognostic capacity of hyperdense middle cerebral artery sign in anterior circulation acute ischaemic stroke patients receiving reperfusion therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About