Corticosteroids for managing acute pain subsequent to surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing surgical tooth extractions of mandibular third molars. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors searched the Epistemonikos database, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until April 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts of trials were identified as potentially eligible. After duplicate data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Forty randomized controlled trials proved eligible. The evidence suggested that corticosteroids compared with a placebo provided a trivial reduction in pain intensity measured 6 hours (mean difference, 8.79 points lower; 95% CI, 14.8 to 2.77 points lower; low certainty) and 24 hours after surgical tooth extraction (mean difference, 8.89 points lower; 95% CI, 10.71 to 7.06 points lower; very low certainty). The authors found no important difference between corticosteroids and a placebo with regard to incidence of postoperative infection (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -1% to 1%; low certainty) and alveolar osteitis (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -3% to 4%; very low certainty). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Low and very low certainty evidence suggests that there is a trivial difference regarding postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects of corticosteroids administered orally, submucosally, or intramuscularly compared with a placebo in patients undergoing third-molar extractions.

Analgesics for the management of acute dental pain in the pediatric population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors assessed the clinical effectiveness of analgesics to manage acute pain after dental extractions and pain associated with irreversible pulpitis in children. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US Clinical Trials registry from inception through November 2020. They included randomized controlled trials comparing any pharmacologic interventions with each other and a placebo in pediatric participants undergoing dental extractions or experiencing irreversible pulpitis. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The authors included 6 randomized controlled trials reporting 8 comparisons. Ibuprofen may reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen (mean difference [MD], 0.27 points; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.68; low certainty) and a placebo (MD, -0.19 points; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.21; low certainty). Acetaminophen may reduce pain intensity compared with a placebo (MD, -0.13 points; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.26; low certainty). Acetaminophen and ibuprofen combined probably reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen alone (MD, -0.75 points; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.27; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen alone (MD, -0.01 points; 95% CI, -0.53 to 0.51; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence regarding adverse effects. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Several pharmacologic interventions alone or in combination may provide a beneficial effect when managing acute dental pain in children. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the use of analgesics to manage irreversible pulpitis.

Evaluation of the use of GRADE in dentistry systematic reviews and its impact on conclusions: a protocol for a methodological study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of evidence of systematic reviews (SRs) with varying degrees of methodological quality. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach allows SR authors to assess the certainty of the evidence they found and transparently relay their conclusions. As there appears to be infrequent utilization of GRADE in the field of dentistry, to identify the impact of GRADE, the aim of this study is to evaluate the use of GRADE in the dental literature and determine whether SRs that use GRADE differ from those that do not with respect to their conclusions. METHODS/DESIGN: We will search Ovid MEDLINE for SRs published from 2016 to the present. We will conduct both screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate and use pre-piloted, standardized forms for data extraction. We will determine the frequency of the use of GRADE and the varying levels of certainty in the current literature and evaluate whether GRADE is being used appropriately. We will also evaluate whether SRs not using GRADE differ from those that use GRADE with regard to methodological quality. We will also determine whether the conclusions of SRs that do not use GRADE would change had GRADE been utilized. Additionally, we will evaluate whether SRs using GRADE are more likely to formulate appropriate conclusions compared to SRs that do not use it. DISCUSSION: This study will investigate the frequency of GRADE assessments in dentistry SRs and the impact of GRADE assessments on the conclusions of a SR. It has important implications for both SR authors and users of this type of literature.

Injectable and topical local anesthetics for acute dental pain: 2 systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction and in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US Clinical Trials registry through November 21, 2020. The authors included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long- vs short-acting injectable anesthetics to reduce pain after tooth extraction (systematic review 1) and evaluated the effect of topical anesthetics in patients with symptomatic pulpitis (systematic review 2). Pairs of reviewers screened articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The authors assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs comparing long- vs short-acting local anesthetics suggest that bupivacaine may decrease the use of rescue analgesia and may not result in additional adverse effects (low certainty evidence). Bupivacaine probably reduces the amount of analgesic consumption compared with lidocaine with epinephrine (mean difference, -1.91 doses; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.46; moderate certainty) and mepivacaine (mean difference, -1.58 doses; 95% CI, -2.21 to -0.95; moderate certainty). Five RCTs suggest that both benzocaine 10% and 20% may increase the number of people experiencing pain reduction compared with placebo when managing acute irreversible pulpitis (low certainty). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Bupivacaine may be superior to lidocaine with epinephrine and mepivacaine with regard to time to and amount of analgesic consumption. Benzocaine may be superior to placebo in reducing pain for 20 through 30 minutes after application.

Efficacy of secondary vs primary closure techniques for the prevention of postoperative complications after impacted mandibular third molar extractions: A systematic review update and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether secondary closure (SC) or primary closure (PC) is better at preventing postoperative complications after impacted mandibular third-molar extraction. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors sought randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of PC and SC on pain, swelling, trismus, infection, and bleeding after impacted mandibular third-molar extraction. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted independently and in duplicate. The reviewers pooled results across studies using a random-effects meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: This review identified 785 unique citations and included 40 trials. Compared with PC, SC was found to have trivial benefits for pain at day 7 and trismus within 1 week (moderate certainty). The incidence of infection and bleeding did not differ importantly between techniques (moderate certainty). However, SC is probably associated with less swelling on day 1 (standardized mean difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.73; moderate certainty) and day 3 (standardized mean difference, -0.87; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.59; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence for pain on days 1 and 3 and low certainty evidence for swelling on day 7. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians choosing between closure techniques should be aware that SC probably imparts an important benefit only for swelling at days 1 and 3. There seems to be a trivial difference between the techniques in other outcomes.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

UPDATES: This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation­risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

Assessments of risk of bias in systematic reviews of observational nutritional epidemiologic studies are often not appropriate or comprehensive: a methodological study.

BACKGROUND: An essential component of systematic reviews is the assessment of risk of bias. To date, there has been no investigation of how reviews of non-randomised studies of nutritional exposures (called 'nutritional epidemiologic studies') assess risk of bias. OBJECTIVE: To describe methods for the assessment of risk of bias in reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Jan 2018-Aug 2019) and sampled 150 systematic reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies. RESULTS: Most reviews (n=131/150; 87.3%) attempted to assess risk of bias. Commonly used tools neglected to address all important sources of bias, such as selective reporting (n=25/28; 89.3%), and frequently included constructs unrelated to risk of bias, such as reporting (n=14/28; 50.0%). Most reviews (n=66/101; 65.3%) did not incorporate risk of bias in the synthesis. While more than half of reviews considered biases due to confounding and misclassification of the exposure in their interpretation of findings, other biases, such as selective reporting, were rarely considered (n=1/150; 0.7%). CONCLUSION: Reviews of nutritional epidemiologic studies have important limitations in their assessment of risk of bias.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.