Aline Maquiné Pascareli-Carlos, Thaís Marchezini Reis, Tatiane Fernandes de Novaes, Anelise Fernandes Montagner, Françoise Helène van de Sande, Thais Gimenez, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Tamara Kerber Tedesco
{"title":"Mapping Systematic Reviews on the Management of Dental Caries in Primary Teeth: A Meta-Research.","authors":"Aline Maquiné Pascareli-Carlos, Thaís Marchezini Reis, Tatiane Fernandes de Novaes, Anelise Fernandes Montagner, Françoise Helène van de Sande, Thais Gimenez, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Tamara Kerber Tedesco","doi":"10.2174/0115733963290288240813050512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic reviews (SRs) represent the most robust source of evidence for informing decision-making. While there are rigorous protocols for properly conducting SRs, sometimes the methodological biases in the primary studies are accounted for in the conclusions of the SRs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to map the evidence regarding the management of caries lesions in primary teeth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two reviewers conducted a systematic search up to March 2024 in electronic data-bases. Any SR concerning the management of caries lesions in primary teeth was considered eli-gible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 162 SRs were included. Among these, 80 focused on restorative treatments, 64 on endodontic treatments, and 18 on non-invasive treatments. Only 42.6% presented a study registra-tion protocol. The majority (67.9%) performed a meta-analysis, while a minority exclusively car-ried out qualitative data analysis. Despite 92.6% of the SRs evaluating the methodological quality or risk of bias of the primary studies using some tool, only 24% assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, resulting in classifications ranging from very low to moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a limited adherence to study registration protocols, indicating a need for improvements in this practice. Additionally, among the few SRs that used the GRADE approach, the majority demonstrated levels of very low to moderate certainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":11175,"journal":{"name":"Current Pediatric Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Pediatric Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0115733963290288240813050512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) represent the most robust source of evidence for informing decision-making. While there are rigorous protocols for properly conducting SRs, sometimes the methodological biases in the primary studies are accounted for in the conclusions of the SRs.
Objective: This study aimed to map the evidence regarding the management of caries lesions in primary teeth.
Methods: Two reviewers conducted a systematic search up to March 2024 in electronic data-bases. Any SR concerning the management of caries lesions in primary teeth was considered eli-gible.
Results: About 162 SRs were included. Among these, 80 focused on restorative treatments, 64 on endodontic treatments, and 18 on non-invasive treatments. Only 42.6% presented a study registra-tion protocol. The majority (67.9%) performed a meta-analysis, while a minority exclusively car-ried out qualitative data analysis. Despite 92.6% of the SRs evaluating the methodological quality or risk of bias of the primary studies using some tool, only 24% assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, resulting in classifications ranging from very low to moderate.
Conclusion: There is a limited adherence to study registration protocols, indicating a need for improvements in this practice. Additionally, among the few SRs that used the GRADE approach, the majority demonstrated levels of very low to moderate certainty.
期刊介绍:
Current Pediatric Reviews publishes frontier reviews on all the latest advances in pediatric medicine. The journal’s aim is to publish the highest quality review articles dedicated to clinical research in the field. The journal is essential reading for all researchers and clinicians in pediatric medicine.