绘制基牙龋齿管理的系统综述:一项元研究。

IF 1.3 Q3 PEDIATRICS
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":"绘制基牙龋齿管理的系统综述:一项元研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:系统综述(SR)是为决策提供信息的最可靠的证据来源。虽然有严格的规程来正确进行系统综述,但有时系统综述的结论会考虑到主要研究的方法偏差:本研究旨在绘制有关乳牙龋齿病变管理的证据图:方法:两位审稿人在电子数据库中对截至 2024 年 3 月的数据进行了系统检索。任何有关乳牙龋齿病变管理的标准研究报告均被认为是有效的:结果:共纳入约 162 篇研究报告。其中,80 篇侧重于修复治疗,64 篇侧重于牙髓治疗,18 篇侧重于非侵入性治疗。只有 42.6% 的研究提交了研究注册协议。大多数研究(67.9%)进行了荟萃分析,而少数研究只进行了定性数据分析。尽管92.6%的研究报告使用某种工具对主要研究的方法学质量或偏倚风险进行了评估,但只有24%的研究报告使用GRADE方法对证据的确定性进行了评估,评估结果从很低到中等不等:结论:对研究注册协议的遵守程度有限,表明需要改进这一做法。此外,在少数使用 GRADE 方法的研究报告中,大多数都显示出极低到中等程度的确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mapping Systematic Reviews on the Management of Dental Caries in Primary Teeth: A Meta-Research.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
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.
×
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