Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews including animal models can be heterogeneous. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews including animal models in dentistry as well as the overall confidence in the results of those systematic reviews. MATERIAL & METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for systematic reviews including animal studies in dentistry published later than January 2010 until 18th of July 2022. Overall confidence in the results was assessed using a modified version of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. Checklist items were rated as yes, partial yes, no and not applicable. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations between systematic review characteristics and the overall adherence to the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The overall confidence in the results was calculated based on the number of critical and non-critical weaknesses presented in the AMSTAR-2 items and rated as high, moderate, low and critical low. RESULTS: Of initially 951 retrieved systematic reviews, 190 were included in the study. The overall confidence in the results was low in 43 (22.6%) and critically low in 133 (70.0%) systematic reviews. While some AMSTAR-2 items were regularly reported (e.g. conflict of interest, selection in duplicate), others were not (e.g. FUNDING: n = 1; 0.5%). Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that the adherence scores of AMSTAR-2 was significantly associated with publication year, journal impact factor (IF), topic, and the use of tools to assess risk of bias (RoB) of the systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Although the methodological quality of dental systematic reviews of animal models improved over the years, it is still suboptimal. The overall confidence in the results was mostly low or critically low. Systematic reviews, which were published later, published in a journal with a higher IF, focused on non-surgery topics, and used at least one tool to assess RoB correlated with greater adherence to the AMSTAR-2 guidelines.

AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable to systematic reviews of non-intervention studies: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was originally developed for systematic reviews (SRs) of health-care interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of AMSTAR 2 to SRs of non-intervention studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a meta-research study. We used 20 SRs for each of the following four types of SRs: Diagnostic Test Accuracy reviews, Etiology and/or Risk reviews, Prevalence and/or Incidence reviews, and Prognostic reviews (80 in total). Three authors applied AMSTAR 2 independently to each included SRs. Then, the authors assessed the applicability of each item to that SR type and any SR type. RESULTS: Researchers unanimously indicated that 7 of 16 AMSTAR 2 items were applicable for all four specific SR types and any SR type (items 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14 and 16), but 8 of 16 items for any SR type. These items could cover generic SR methods that do not depend on a specific SR type. CONCLUSION: AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable for non-intervention SRs. There is a need to adapt/extend AMSTAR 2 for SRs of non-intervention studies. Our study can help to further define generic methodological aspects shared across SR types and methodological expectations for non-intervention SRs.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with meta-analyses focusing on traumatic dental injuries: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: High methodological quality is required to interpret results of systematic reviews (SRs) in a reliable and accurate manner. The primary aim of this study was to appraise the methodologic quality of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and assess overall confidence in their results. A secondary aim was to identify potential predictive factors associated with methodological quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SRs with meta-analyses published in English in the field of traumatic dental injuries from inception to March 2023 were identified. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Two independent evaluators scored each AMSTAR 2 item as "yes" if it was adequately addressed, "partial yes" if it was partially addressed, and "no" if it was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as "High," "Moderate," "Low," or "Critically low." Using multiple regression, the relationship between five predictor variables (journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, journal adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and a priori protocol registration) and the total AMSTAR 2 scores was analyzed. The p-value was 5%. RESULTS: Forty-one SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of 13 reviews was categorized as "Critically low," 18 as "Low," 3 as "Moderate" and 7 as "High." Among the five predictor variables analyzed statistically, impact factor of the journal and year of publication significantly influenced the total AMSTAR 2 scores. The number of authors, adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and a priori protocol registration had no significant impact on AMSTAR 2 scores. CONCLUSION: The overall confidence in the results of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries was "Low" or "Critically Low" in the vast majority of studies (31 of 41). SRs with meta-analyses published in journals with higher impact factors and more recent publications had significantly higher methodological quality.

Assessment of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes: A methodological study.

The study aimed to assess the prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts of RCTs in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and to assess the risk indicators which may be associated with spin. Any original publication reporting a two-arm RCT in dental caries with clearly identified statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published from January 1, 2015 until October 28, 2022 were included. PubMed was searched electronically to identify the eligible publications. The prevalence of spin in titles and abstracts were assessed and categorized into spin patterns based on a pre-determined classification scheme. The association between spin and the potential risk indicators at study, author, journal, institutional, and national level was assessed. A total of 234 eligible RCT publications were included. The prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts was 3% (95%CI: 2% to 6%) and 79% (95%CI: 74% to 84%), respectively. The most common spin patterns in the results and conclusion sections, respectively, were results focusing on statistically significant within-group comparisons (23%), and conclusions focusing only on statistically significant results without acknowledgment of statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcomes (26%). The spin was significantly associated with number of study centers (single-center vs. multicenter) (OR=2.131; 95%CI: 1.092 to 4.158; P=0.03), trial designs (non-parallel designs vs. parallel designs) (OR=0.395; 95%CI: 0.193 to 0.810; P=0.01), and overall H index of institutions for last authors (OR=0.998; 95%CI: 0.996 to 0.999; P<0.01), while it was not significantly associated with the other indicators. In the RCT publications with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes in dental caries, the prevalence of spin may be low in the titles but high in the abstracts. Single-center studies with parallel designs and a lower overall H index of institutions for last authors may be more likely to have spin in the abstracts.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for NMA checklist. METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12. RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items. CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.

Methodological quality assessment criteria for the evaluation of laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within the specialty of Endodontology: A development protocol.

High-quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well-structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be applied objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately defined, unreliably applied, inadequately analysed, unreasonably biased, defective, and non-repeatable. The aim of the present paper is to outline the process to be followed in the development of comprehensive methodological quality assessment criteria to be used when evaluating laboratory studies, that is research not conducted in vivo on humans or animals, included in systematic reviews within Endodontology. The development of new methodological quality assessment criteria for appraising the laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within Endodontology will follow a three-stage process. First, a steering committee will be formed by the project leaders to develop a preliminary list of assessment criteria by modifying and adapting those already available, but with the addition of several new items relevant for Endodontology. The initial draft assessment criteria will be reviewed and refined by a Delphi Group (n = 40) for their relevance and inclusion using a nine-point Likert scale. Second, the agreed items will then be discussed in an online or face-to-face meeting by a group of experts (n = 10) to further refine the assessment criteria. Third, based on the feedback received from the online/face-to-face meeting, the steering committee will revise the quality assessment criteria and subsequently a group of authors will be selected to pilot the new system. Based on the feedback collected, the criteria may be revised further before being approved by the steering committee. The assessment criteria will be published in relevant journals, presented at national and international congresses/meetings, and will be freely available on a dedicated website. The steering committee will update the assessment criteria periodically based on feedback received from end-users.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics.

AIM: The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis. METHODOLOGY: Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item-'Yes'-when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes'-when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No'-when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers. RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ('Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?'), Item 8 ('Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?'), Item 9 ('Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?') and Item 16 ('Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?'), whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ('Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?'). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorized as 'Critically low', one review was 'Low', two reviews were 'Moderate' and one review was 'High'. CONCLUSION: The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high-quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Abstracts of scientific articles should be accurate and detailed in summarizing the information in the full-text because they are the first article section the reader examines. This study assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts related to implant dentistry and examined associations between reporting quality and study characteristics. METHODS: On the 17th of January 2021, we searched the PubMed database for abstracts of RCTs published in high-ranked periodontology and implant dentistry journals from 2016 to 2021. For each abstract, we assessed if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist items were reported completely, partially, or not reported. An Overall CONSORT Score (OCS) and relative score (OCS%) were calculated as a proxy to checklist adherance. Linear regression models were fitted to analyze associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. RESULTS: Four-hundred and thirty four of the 678 retrieved abstracts were eligible for inclusion. The mean OCS and OCS% were 6,23 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.56) or 41.5% (SD = 10.4), respectively. Items most frequently reported included the title (n = 434; 100%), intended intervention (n = 425; 98%) and conclusions (n = 430; 99%). Participant allocation, blinding, and trial registration were rarely completely reported with frequencies of 2%, 3% and 4%, respectively. We found that number of authors, continent, type of RCT, number of centers, report of ethical approval, funding, structure and length of the abstract were associated with better abstract reporting. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal. Journals should start to incorporate and endorse the use of the CONSORT-A guidelines in their instructions to authors to enhance reporting quality. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.

Meta-research publications in dentistry: a review.

The present scoping review has the objective of providing an overview of meta-research in dentistry. A search of the PubMed database was performed for the period 11 October 2014 to 10 October 2019. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by one author; prior to this, a random sample of 10% of the retrieved titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors, achieving agreement of >80% on eligibility for initial inclusion, corresponding to good agreement. The following information was extracted from the full text of each article: meta-research area of interest; study design; type of studies evaluated in the meta-research; type of methodology used in assessment of the primary research; conflicts of interest reported; sponsorships reported; dental discipline; journal of publication; country of the first author; number of citations; and impact factor. A total of 7800 documents were initially retrieved. After analysis of the title/abstract and the full text of each article, and a snowballing procedure, 155 meta-research studies were identified and included. The 'methods' and 'reporting' meta-research areas were the most prevalent, with 73 (47%) and 61 (40%) studies, respectively. General dentistry, and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics were the dental specialties with the greatest number/proportion of included studies with 45 (29%) and 28 (18%) studies, respectively. These findings may help to prioritize future meta-research in dentistry, consequently avoiding unnessecary investigations, and increasing the value of oral and dental research.

Brazilian Articles in Top-Tier Dental Journals and Influence of International Collaboration on Citation Rates.

This study investigated the presence of co-authorship from Brazil in articles published in top-tier dental journals and analyzed the influence of international collaboration, article type (original research or review), and funding on citation rates. Articles published between 2015 and 2017 in 38 selected journals from 14 dental subareas were screened in Scopus. Bibliographic information, citation counts, and funding details were recorded for all articles (N=15619). Collaboration with other top-10 publishing countries in dentistry was registered. Annual citations averages (ACA) were calculated. A linear regression model assessed differences in ACA between subareas. Multilevel linear regression models evaluated the influence of article type, funding, and presence of international collaboration in ACA. Brazil was a frequent co-author of articles published in the period (top 3: USA=25.5%; Brazil=13.8%; Germany=9.2%) and the country with most publications in two subareas. The subjects with the biggest share of Brazil are Operative Dentistry/Cariology, Dental Materials, and Endodontics. Brazil was second in total citations, but fifth in citation averages per article. From the total of 2155 articles co-authored by Brazil, 74.8% had no co-authorship from other top-10 publishing countries. USA (17.8%), Italy (4.2%), and UK (3.2%) were the main co-author countries, but the main collaboration country varied between subjects. Implantology and Dental Materials were the subjects with most international co-authorship. Review articles and articles with international collaboration were associated with increased citation rates, whereas the presence of study funding did not influence the citations.

Are researchers paying too much for attending dental meetings?

Dental meetings are important venues for sharing knowledge and experiences among researchers and clinicians. The costs for participating in such events, however, are high and have increased over the years. This opinion paper discusses the fairness of such a policy, with high costs for researchers presenting their findings, as well as some suggestions to reduce the economic burden of participants actively involved in presenting their research findings.

The therapeutic potential of regulatory T lymphocytes in periodontitis: A systematic review.

This systematic review aimed to: (a) generate a descriptive synthesis of preclinical studies assessing the therapeutic potential of regulatory T lymphocytes (Tregs) to arrest periodontitis, (b) evaluate the methodological heterogeneity of the reviewed animal studies and (c) assess the risk of bias (RoB) of the included studies. The electronic search for animal studies included the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and LILACS databases. In addition, a manual search assessed the high-ranked scientific journals in "periodontics/immunology" and the references listed in the included studies. There were no language, year or publication status restrictions. Two independent reviewers selected and extracted the data, and Cohen's Kappa coefficient was calculated to determine the inter-examiner agreement. The Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation's (SYRCLE) tool was used to assess the RoB. A total of 21 of the 425 studies obtained from the database search were included. Treg function was mainly described in Porphyromonas gingivalis-induced periodontitis (57.1%) in mice (76.2%), where Treg suppression was strongly related to disease progression and Treg induction was strongly related to immuno-inflammatory response reduction. Of those 21 studies, eight included eight animal experiments using three distinct therapeutic approaches, including: P. gingivalis-driven immunization (n = 3), retinoic acid inoculation (n = 2) and anti-inflammatory molecules in polymeric carriers (n = 3), which could modulate the Treg activity through cytokine production (interleukin-10 and transforming growth factor-ß1), CC-chemokine- and CC-chemokine receptor-mediated chemoattraction (CCL22 and CCR4) or Th17-associated receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (RANKL) downregulation. However, the studies with animal experiments did not specify the randomization sequences and housing conditions that were used, and therefore, 42.11% of the entries were rated as unclear RoB. Distinct therapeutic strategies involving Tregs could potentially suppress the immuno-inflammatory response and restore alveolar bone homeostasis during periodontitis. Nevertheless, important methodological variability, poor reporting of treatment effect estimates and unclear RoB suggest using caution when assessing the results of these studies.

Surveying Retracted Studies and Notices Within the Field of Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize retracted studies within the field of radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computerized searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2017 looking for retracted studies using the terms "retraction note," "retracted note," "withdrawn" and "radiotherapy," and "radiation oncology." Additional studies were identified by hand-searching 10 discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers and then extracted author demographics, journal characteristics, and retraction-specific variables. RESULTS: Of the 58 studies identified, the most common reasons for retraction were misconduct (43%), methodological error (21%), authorship issues (5%), unknown causes (5%), and journal (administrative) errors (3%). A total of 13 systematic reviews or protocols (22%) were withdrawn from the Cochrane Library for being out-of-date or redundant. All but one retracted study and retraction notice were available in portable document format. Of the 57 retrieved papers, 79% were identified as retracted via in-text notations or watermarks. Overall median time to retraction was 44 months (interquartile range, 11-98 months). However, 42 studies (72%) were still cited after retraction notices were published. CONCLUSIONS: A retracted study within the field of radiation oncology remains a relatively uncommon event. Although promising, our data suggest that the majority of these retracted articles continue to be cited as valid research. As such, there is still a need for clinicians to remain vigilant with their academic rigor and good clinical research practices. There is an urgent need for publication houses to foster universal publishing standards along with discipline-specific retraction guidelines.

Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.

The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.

Risk factors that may modify the innate and adaptive immune responses in periodontal diseases.

Plaque-induced periodontal diseases occur in response to the accumulation of dental plaque. Disease manifestation and progression is determined by the nature of the immune response to the bacterial complexes in plaque. In general, predisposing factors for these periodontal diseases can be defined as those factors which retain or hinder the removal of plaque and, depending upon the nature of the immune response to this plaque, the disease will either remain stable and not progress or it may progress and result in chronic periodontitis. In contrast, modifying factors can be defined as those factors that alter the nature or course of the inflammatory lesion. These factors do not cause the disease but rather modify the chronic inflammatory response, which, in turn, is determined by the nature of the innate and adaptive immune responses and the local cytokine and inflammatory mediator networks. Chronic inflammation is characterized by vascular, cellular and repair responses within the tissues. This paper will focus on how common modifying factors, such as smoking, stress, hormonal changes, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and HIV/AIDS, influence each of these responses, together with treatment implications. As treatment planning in periodontics requires an understanding of the etiology and pathogenesis of the disease, it is important for all modifying factors to be taken into account. For some of these, such as smoking, stress and diabetic control, supportive health behavior advice within the dental setting should be an integral component for overall patient management.

Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews require comprehensive literature search strategies to avoid publication bias. This study aimed to assess and evaluate the reporting quality of search strategies within systematic reviews published in the field of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS: Three electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE(®), Ovid EMBASE(®) and the Cochrane Library) were searched to identify systematic reviews addressing SRS interventions, with the last search performed in October 2014. Manual searches of the reference lists of included systematic reviews were conducted. The search strategies of the included systematic reviews were assessed using a standardized nine-question form based on the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify the important predictors of search quality. RESULTS: A total of 85 systematic reviews were included. The median quality score of search strategies was 2 (interquartile range = 2). Whilst 89% of systematic reviews reported the use of search terms, only 14% of systematic reviews reported searching the grey literature. Multiple linear regression analyses identified publication year (continuous variable), meta-analysis performance and journal impact factor (continuous variable) as predictors of higher mean quality scores. CONCLUSION: This study identified the urgent need to improve the quality of search strategies within systematic reviews published in the field of SRS. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is the first to address how authors performed searches to select clinical studies for inclusion in their systematic reviews. Comprehensive and well-implemented search strategies are pivotal to reduce the chance of publication bias and consequently generate more reliable systematic review findings.