第一磨牙切牙药物已发表研究的定性评价

Q1 Medicine
Vaishnavi Gopalakrishnan, Robert Anthonappa, Manikandan Ekambaram, Nigel M. King
{"title":"第一磨牙切牙药物已发表研究的定性评价","authors":"Vaishnavi Gopalakrishnan,&nbsp;Robert Anthonappa,&nbsp;Manikandan Ekambaram,&nbsp;Nigel M. King","doi":"10.1111/jicd.12389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The aim of the present study was to perform a qualitative assessment of published clinical studies, using the Medline database between 2006 and 2016, on commonly used pulpotomy medicaments. Standardized criteria proposed by Fuks and Papagiannoulis in 2006 was used by three independent examiners who assessed a total of 64 studies and graded the papers as grades A (38-42), B1 (32-37), B2 (25-31), or C (&lt;25) based on the score obtained. Dropout rates were calculated based on the initial sample and the final sample used for analysis. Only three papers were grade A, two of which were parts of the same clinical study with results presented at 24 and 42 months, respectively. Twelve papers were graded B1, 19 were graded B2, and 30 were graded C. The quality of evidence seemed greatest for formocresol (2 grade A, 21 grade B), followed by electro surgery (1 grade A study), calcium hydroxide (11 grade B studies), and ferric sulfate (11 grade B studies). The current qualitative assessment clearly highlights the inadequacies in the published studies, especially the study design and clinical and radiographic criteria, thus provides a basis for formulating specific guidelines for researchers embarking on conducting clinical trials on pulpotomy medicaments.</p>","PeriodicalId":16204,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jicd.12389","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative assessment of published studies on pulpotomy medicaments for primary molar teeth\",\"authors\":\"Vaishnavi Gopalakrishnan,&nbsp;Robert Anthonappa,&nbsp;Manikandan Ekambaram,&nbsp;Nigel M. King\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jicd.12389\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The aim of the present study was to perform a qualitative assessment of published clinical studies, using the Medline database between 2006 and 2016, on commonly used pulpotomy medicaments. Standardized criteria proposed by Fuks and Papagiannoulis in 2006 was used by three independent examiners who assessed a total of 64 studies and graded the papers as grades A (38-42), B1 (32-37), B2 (25-31), or C (&lt;25) based on the score obtained. Dropout rates were calculated based on the initial sample and the final sample used for analysis. Only three papers were grade A, two of which were parts of the same clinical study with results presented at 24 and 42 months, respectively. Twelve papers were graded B1, 19 were graded B2, and 30 were graded C. The quality of evidence seemed greatest for formocresol (2 grade A, 21 grade B), followed by electro surgery (1 grade A study), calcium hydroxide (11 grade B studies), and ferric sulfate (11 grade B studies). The current qualitative assessment clearly highlights the inadequacies in the published studies, especially the study design and clinical and radiographic criteria, thus provides a basis for formulating specific guidelines for researchers embarking on conducting clinical trials on pulpotomy medicaments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jicd.12389\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jicd.12389\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jicd.12389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本研究的目的是使用Medline数据库对2006年至2016年期间发表的关于常用髓系切开术药物的临床研究进行定性评估。Fuks和Papagiannoulis在2006年提出了标准化的标准,由三位独立的考官使用,他们评估了总共64项研究,并根据所得分数将论文分为a(38-42)、B1(32-37)、B2(25-31)或C (<25)。根据初始样本和用于分析的最终样本计算退学率。只有三篇论文是A级,其中两篇是同一临床研究的一部分,分别在24个月和42个月时发表结果。12篇论文被评为B1级,19篇论文被评为B2级,30篇论文被评为c级。福摩甲酚的证据质量最高(2篇为A级,21篇为B级),其次是电外科(1篇为A级)、氢氧化钙(11篇为B级)和硫酸铁(11篇为B级)。目前的定性评估清楚地突出了已发表研究的不足之处,特别是研究设计和临床及影像学标准方面的不足,从而为研究人员着手进行截髓药物临床试验制定具体的指导方针提供了依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Qualitative assessment of published studies on pulpotomy medicaments for primary molar teeth

The aim of the present study was to perform a qualitative assessment of published clinical studies, using the Medline database between 2006 and 2016, on commonly used pulpotomy medicaments. Standardized criteria proposed by Fuks and Papagiannoulis in 2006 was used by three independent examiners who assessed a total of 64 studies and graded the papers as grades A (38-42), B1 (32-37), B2 (25-31), or C (<25) based on the score obtained. Dropout rates were calculated based on the initial sample and the final sample used for analysis. Only three papers were grade A, two of which were parts of the same clinical study with results presented at 24 and 42 months, respectively. Twelve papers were graded B1, 19 were graded B2, and 30 were graded C. The quality of evidence seemed greatest for formocresol (2 grade A, 21 grade B), followed by electro surgery (1 grade A study), calcium hydroxide (11 grade B studies), and ferric sulfate (11 grade B studies). The current qualitative assessment clearly highlights the inadequacies in the published studies, especially the study design and clinical and radiographic criteria, thus provides a basis for formulating specific guidelines for researchers embarking on conducting clinical trials on pulpotomy medicaments.

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
Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry
Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry (JICD) aims to publish quality, peer reviewed original research and topical reviews on all aspects of investigative and clinical dentistry and craniofacial research, including molecular studies related to oral health and disease. Although international in outlook, the Editor especially encourages papers from the Asia Pacific. The journal also aims to provide clinicians, scientists and students of dentistry with a knowledge transfer platform for rapid publication of reports through an international journal, which will be available free online until 2012. Its scope, therefore, is broad, inclusive and international, but with a particular focus on Asia Pacific. The Editor welcomes manuscripts in the following key thematic areas in oral and maxillofacial sciences: Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Conservative Dentistry, Dental Biomaterials, Dental Pedagogy, Endodontics and Traumatology, Implant Dentistry, Oral Biosciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Microbiology, Orthodontics, Oral Radiology, Oral Rehabilitation, Paedodontics, Periodontology and Periodontal 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