Consistency of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines in periodontology: a systematic review.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
Marco Antonio Alarcón, Tania Ariza-Freitas, Natali Chavez-Vereau, Andrea López-Pacheco, Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Lilian Málaga-Figueroa
{"title":"Consistency of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines in periodontology: a systematic review.","authors":"Marco Antonio Alarcón,&nbsp;Tania Ariza-Freitas,&nbsp;Natali Chavez-Vereau,&nbsp;Andrea López-Pacheco,&nbsp;Claudio Mendes Pannuti,&nbsp;Lilian Málaga-Figueroa","doi":"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the methodological quality and the consistency of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in Periodontology. An electronic search was conducted in two databases, MEDLINE and EMBASE, eight CPGs databases, and home pages of scientific societies in Periodontology up to April 2022. Three reviewers independently assessed methodological quality using the AGREE II instrument. In addition, we evaluated the consistency of the recommendations. Eleven CPGs were included, and the topics developed focused on prevention, diagnosis, risk factors, surgical and non-surgical periodontal treatment, antimicrobial therapy, root coverage, and maintenance. We found that the AGREE domains 2 (Stakeholder involvement) and 5 (Applicability) obtained the lowest scores. Domains 1 (Scope and purpose), 3 (Rigor of development) and 4 (Clarity of presentation) obtained the highest scores among the evaluated CPGs. The clinical recommendations for treatment of periodontal diseases were mostly consistent. Overall, the quality of CPGs used in periodontics was high. There was consistency of recommendations in specific fields. These findings may help researchers to promote CPGs focused on different fields of periodontics that have not yet been developed. Furthermore, the clinician will be able to make better clinical decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48942,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Oral Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0029","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the methodological quality and the consistency of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in Periodontology. An electronic search was conducted in two databases, MEDLINE and EMBASE, eight CPGs databases, and home pages of scientific societies in Periodontology up to April 2022. Three reviewers independently assessed methodological quality using the AGREE II instrument. In addition, we evaluated the consistency of the recommendations. Eleven CPGs were included, and the topics developed focused on prevention, diagnosis, risk factors, surgical and non-surgical periodontal treatment, antimicrobial therapy, root coverage, and maintenance. We found that the AGREE domains 2 (Stakeholder involvement) and 5 (Applicability) obtained the lowest scores. Domains 1 (Scope and purpose), 3 (Rigor of development) and 4 (Clarity of presentation) obtained the highest scores among the evaluated CPGs. The clinical recommendations for treatment of periodontal diseases were mostly consistent. Overall, the quality of CPGs used in periodontics was high. There was consistency of recommendations in specific fields. These findings may help researchers to promote CPGs focused on different fields of periodontics that have not yet been developed. Furthermore, the clinician will be able to make better clinical decisions.

牙周病临床实践指南建议的一致性:一项系统综述。
本系统综述的目的是评价牙周病临床实践指南(CPGs)建议的方法学质量和一致性。到2022年4月,在MEDLINE和EMBASE两个数据库、8个CPGs数据库和牙周病科学学会主页上进行了电子检索。三位审稿人使用AGREE II仪器独立评估方法学质量。此外,我们评估了建议的一致性。纳入了11个CPGs,主题集中于预防、诊断、危险因素、手术和非手术牙周治疗、抗菌治疗、牙根覆盖和维护。我们发现,AGREE领域2(涉众参与)和5(适用性)得分最低。领域1(范围和目的),3(开发的严密性)和4(演示的清晰度)在评估的cpg中获得了最高分。治疗牙周病的临床建议基本一致。总体而言,CPGs用于牙周病的质量较高。在具体领域的建议是一致的。这些发现可能有助于研究人员促进CPGs专注于牙周病尚未开发的不同领域。此外,临床医生将能够做出更好的临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brazilian Oral Research
Brazilian Oral Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信