Developing reporting checklist items from systematic review findings: a roadmap and lessons to be learned from ACCORD.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how researchers can identify and translate reporting gaps from a systematic review into checklist items for reporting guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Good quality research reporting ensures transparency, reproducibility, and utility, facilitated by reporting guidelines. Conducting a systematic review is an essential step in the development of these guidelines. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network's toolkit (2010) assists researchers in this process and is due for an update to address current gaps and evolving research methods. One significant gap is the translation of systematic review findings into checklist items. Reflecting on our experience developing the ACcurate Consensus Reporting Document, we illustrate this translation process aiming to empower researchers developing reporting guidelines to address potential biases and promote transparency. We highlight the challenges faced and how they were addressed. RESULTS: The systematic review search process was iterative, involving multiple adjustments to balance precision and sensitivity. Excessively stringent exclusion criteria may lead to missed valuable insights, especially when studies offer relevant content. An information specialist was invaluable in developing the search strategy. Key lessons learned include the necessity of maintaining flexibility and openness during data extraction, continuous adaptation based on panelist feedback, and promoting clear communication through understandable language. These principles can guide the development of future reporting guidelines and the updating of the EQUATOR toolkit, promoting transparency and robustness in research reporting. CONCLUSION: Maintaining flexibility, capturing evolving insights, clear communication, and accommodating changes in research and technologies are key to translating systematic review findings into effective reporting checklists.

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP)-A systematic review of the methodological quality of contact dermatitis clinical practice guidelines.

The Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP) assesses the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for high-burden skin diseases. This review focuses on contact dermatitis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs published between 1 November 2018 and 1 November 2023. Prespecified guideline resources were hand searched. Two authors independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Instruments used were the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument and Lenzer's Red Flags. Twenty five CPGs were included, exhibiting heterogeneity in both the topics they addressed and their methodological quality. Whereas the CPGs on management of hand eczema from Denmark, Europe and the Netherlands scored best, most CPGs fell short of being clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence-based. Disclosure of conflicts of interest scored well, and areas needing improvement include 'strength and wording of recommendations', 'applicability', 'updating' and 'external review'. Adhering to AGREE II and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) enhances methodological quality.

Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development.

OBJECTIVE: To identify evidence on the reporting quality of consensus methodology and to select potential checklist items for the ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) project to develop a consensus reporting guideline. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Academic Search Premier and PsycINFO from inception until 7 January 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies, reviews and published guidance addressing the reporting quality of consensus methodology for improvement of health outcomes in biomedicine or clinical practice. Reports of studies using or describing consensus methods but not commenting on their reporting quality were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening and data extraction of eligible studies were carried out independently by two authors. Reporting quality items addressed by the studies were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included: five systematic reviews, four narrative reviews, three research papers, three conference abstracts, two research guidance papers and one protocol. The majority of studies indicated that the quality of reporting of consensus methodology could be improved. Commonly addressed items were: consensus panel composition; definition of consensus and the threshold for achieving consensus. Items least addressed were: public patient involvement (PPI); the role of the steering committee, chair, cochair; conflict of interest of panellists and funding. Data extracted from included studies revealed additional items that were not captured in the data extraction form such as justification of deviation from the protocol or incentives to encourage panellist response. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review confirmed the need for a reporting checklist for consensus methodology and provided a range of potential checklist items to report. The next step in the ACCORD project builds on this systematic review and focuses on reaching consensus on these items to develop the reporting guideline. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/2rzm9.

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP), a systematic review of atopic dermatitis clinical practice guidelines: are they clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE)?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential in delivering optimum healthcare, such as for atopic dermatitis (AD), a highly prevalent skin disease. Although many CPGs are available for AD, their quality has not been critically appraised. OBJECTIVES: To identify CPGs on AD worldwide and to assess with validated instruments whether those CPGs are clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs on AD published between 1 April 2016 and 1 April 2021. Additionally we hand searched prespecified guideline resources. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of eligible guidelines were independently carried out by two authors. Instruments used for quality assessment were the AGREE II Reporting Checklist, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness and Lenzer's Red Flags. RESULTS: Forty CPGs were included, mostly from countries with a high sociodemographic index. The reporting quality varied enormously. Three CPGs scored 'excellent' on all AGREE II domains and three scored 'poor' on all domains. We found no association between AGREE II scores and a country's gross domestic product. One CPG fully met all nine IOM criteria and two fully met eight. Three CPGs had no red flags. 'Applicability' and 'rigour of development' were the lowest scoring AGREE II domains; 'external review', 'updating procedures' and 'rating strength of recommendations' were the IOM criteria least met; and most red flags were for 'limited or no involvement of methodological expertise' and 'no external review'. Management of conflicts of interest (COIs) appeared challenging. When constructs of the instruments overlapped, they showed high concordance, strengthening our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, many CPGs are not sufficiently clear, unbiased, trustworthy or evidence based (CUTE) and lack applicability. Therefore improvement is warranted, for which using the AGREE II instrument is recommended. Some improvements can be easily accomplished through robust reporting. Others, such as transparency, applicability, evidence foundation and managing COIs, might require more effort.

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically identify and critically assess the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 with the AGREE II instrument. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and grey literature from November 2019 - November 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. One reviewer independently screened the retrieved titles and abstracts, and a second reviewer confirmed the decisions. Full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We included any guideline that provided recommendations on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. We descriptively summarized CPGs characteristics. We assessed the quality with the AGREE II instrument and we summarized relevant therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: We retrieved 3,907 records and 71 CPGs were included. Means (Standard Deviations) of the scores for the 6 domains of the AGREE II instrument were 65%(SD19.56%), 39%(SD19.64%), 27%(SD19.48%), 70%(SD15.74%), 26%(SD18.49%), 42%(SD34.91) for the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence domains, respectively. Most of the CPGs showed a low overall quality (less than 40%). CONCLUSION: Future CPGs for COVID-19 need to rely, for their development, on standard evidence-based methods and tools.

Rosacea: New Concepts in Classification and Treatment.

Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis mainly affecting the cheeks, nose, chin, and forehead. Rosacea is characterized by recurrent episodes of flushing or transient erythema, persistent erythema, phymatous changes, papules, pustules, and telangiectasia. The eyes may also be involved. Due to rosacea affecting the face, it has a profound negative impact on quality of life, self-esteem, and well-being. In addition to general skin care, there are several approved treatment options available for addressing these features, both topical and systemic. For some features, intense pulse light, laser, and surgery are of value. Recent advances in fundamental scientific research have underscored the roles of the innate and adaptive immune systems as well as neurovascular dysregulation underlying the spectrum of clinical features of rosacea. Endogenous and exogenous stimuli may initiate and aggravate several pathways in patients with rosacea. This review covers the new phenotype-based diagnosis and classification system reflecting pathophysiology, and new and emerging treatment options and approaches. We address new topical and systemic formulations, as well as recent evidence on treatment combinations. In addition, ongoing studies investigating novel therapeutic interventions will be summarized.

Consistency of Recommendations for Evaluation and Management of Hypertension.

Importance: Hypertension is very common, but guideline recommendations for hypertension have been controversial, are of increasing interest, and have profound implications. Objective: To systematically assess the consistency of recommendations regarding hypertension management across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of hypertension management recommendations included CPGs that had been published as of April 2018. Two point-of-care resources that provided graded recommendations were included for secondary analyses. Discrete and unambiguous specifications of the population, intervention, and comparison states were used to define a series of reference recommendations. Three raters reached consensus on coding the direction and strength of each recommendation made by each CPG. Three independent raters reached consensus on the importance of each reference recommendation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were rates of consistency for direction and strength among CPGs. Sensitivity analyses testing the robustness were conducted by excluding recommendation statements that were described as insufficient evidence, excluding single recommendation sources, and stratifying by importance of recommendations. Results: The analysis included 8 CPGs with a total of 71 reference recommendations, 68 of which had clear recommendations from 2 or more CPGs. Across CPGs, 22 recommendations (32%) were consistent in direction and strength, 18 recommendations (27%) were consistent in direction but inconsistent in strength, and 28 recommendations (41%) were inconsistent in direction. The rate of consistency was lower in secondary analyses. When insufficient evidence ratings were excluded, there was still substantial inconsistency, and a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis suggested the inconsistency could not be attributed to any single recommendation source. Inconsistency in direction was more common for recommendations deemed to be of lower importance (11 of 20 recommendations [55%]), but 17 of 48 high-importance recommendations (35%) had inconsistency in direction. Conclusions and Relevance: Hypertension is a common chronic condition with widespread expectations surrounding guideline-based care, yet CPGs have a high rate of inconsistency. Further investigations should determine the reasons for inconsistency, the implications for recommendation development, and the role of synthesis across recommendations for optimal guidance of clinical care.

A mapping study and recommendations for a joint NGO (Think Pink) and Bahrain Government Breast Cancer project.

AIMS: Breast cancer within the region continues to present challenges to the healthcare services. Strategies to shed light on clinical gaps could better support country-specific circumstances. The aims of the mapping study were to identify the gaps in the evidence base, for the management of breast cancer with relevance to Bahrain and the Gulf Region. In parallel, focusing on areas and directions of research, which are compatible with international and local clinical interests. It was envisaged that the mapping project would expose not only opportunities to improve support to the community but also illustrate the possible engagement of a government entity and a Nongovernment Organization in a private-public partnership. METHOD: An extensive literature review of local and international publications from the period between 1979 and 2015 was undertaken. Searches were conducted using free-text terms, singularly or combined, with no limiters, to provide unrestricted retrieval of available English studies. RESULTS: A total of 326 citations were identified, which after deduplication provided 277 unique citations of which included 236 studies within 13 different categories, relevant to breast cancer within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). CONCLUSION: Contextualizing gaps in literature and, therefore, providing evidence-based decisions, not only support the enduser, but better support the country-specific challenges and burdens to healthcare. Three broad but key areas were identified after mapping of the literature, covering:screening and mammography, knowledge translation and dissemination, and lymphoedema postsurgical resection. Similar mapping projects could be undertaken by other national NGO's to better support the government and solidify the framework for a public-private partnership.

Irreversible Pulpitis - A Source of Antibiotic Over-Prescription?

Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health concern. Antibiotics continue to be prescribed by some clinicians to resolve dental pain even though research indicates that antibiotics are not effective for treating conditions such as irreversible pulpitis. The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which current research and evidence around irreversible pulpitis has been translated into dental practice and the gaps in dentists' knowledge. An on-line clinical vignette format survey questionnaire about treatment of irreversible pulpitis was distributed to the members of the Academy of Operative Dentistry and Academy of General Dentistry (US based international dental bodies). Their responses were recorded and evaluated. A total of 403 dentists participated in the survey. Over a third (39.3%) indicated they would prescribe antibiotics for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in a permanent tooth occurring without any signs of systemic infection. The rest indicated they would not prescribe antibiotics; most of them would prescribe an analgesic combined with pulpectomy. Those who had undertaken advanced education training achieved a significantly higher mean knowledge score compared to those with just a primary dental degree (p=0.011). Similarly, full or part time academicians had a higher mean knowledge score than the clinicians who work only in private practice (p=0.014). Some dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately for alleviating pain due to irreversible pulpitis. Antibiotic prescribing practices of dentists with advanced education or academic engagement were better as compared to the other participants. There is clear evidence of antibiotic over-prescribing for irreversible pulpitis which needs to be addressed urgently.

Irreversible pulpitis - a source of antibiotic over-prescription?

Abstract Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health concern. Antibiotics continue to be prescribed by some clinicians to resolve dental pain even though research indicates that antibiotics are not effective for treating conditions such as irreversible pulpitis. The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which current research and evidence around irreversible pulpitis has been translated into dental practice and the gaps in dentists' knowledge. An on-line clinical vignette format survey questionnaire about treatment of irreversible pulpitis was distributed to the members of the Academy of Operative Dentistry and Academy of General Dentistry (US based international dental bodies). Their responses were recorded and evaluated. A total of 403 dentists participated in the survey. Over a third (39.3%) indicated they would prescribe antibiotics for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in a permanent tooth occurring without any signs of systemic infection. The rest indicated they would not prescribe antibiotics; most of them would prescribe an analgesic combined with pulpectomy. Those who had undertaken advanced education training achieved a significantly higher mean knowledge score compared to those with just a primary dental degree (p=0.011). Similarly, full or part time academicians had a higher mean knowledge score than the clinicians who work only in private practice (p=0.014). Some dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately for alleviating pain due to irreversible pulpitis. Antibiotic prescribing practices of dentists with advanced education or academic engagement were better as compared to the other participants. There is clear evidence of antibiotic over-prescribing for irreversible pulpitis which needs to be addressed urgently.

Resumo A resistência aos antibióticos é uma preocupação crescente para a saúde pública. Os antibióticos continuam a ser prescritos por alguns dentistas para resolver a dor dentária, embora pesquisas indiquem que os antibióticos não são eficazes no tratamento de condições como a pulpite irreversível. O objetivo deste estudo foi determinar em que medida as pesquisas atuais e as evidências em torno da pulpite irreversível foram traduzidas em prática odontológica e as lacunas existentes no conhecimento dos dentistas. Um questionário de pesquisa em formato de vinheta clínica on-line sobre o tratamento da pulpite irreversível foi distribuído para os membros da Academia de Odontologia Operatória e da Academia de Odontologia Geral (órgãos dentários internacionais dos EUA). Suas respostas foram registradas e avaliadas. Um total de 403 dentistas participou da pesquisa. Mais de um terço (39,3%) indicaram que prescreveriam antibióticos para pulpite irreversível sintomática em um dente permanente sem qualquer sinal de infecção sistêmica. O restante respondeu que eles não prescreveriam antibióticos; a maioria deles prescreveria um analgésico combinado com pulpectomia. Aqueles que realizaram o treinamento de educação avançada obtiveram uma pontuação de conhecimento médio significativamente maior em comparação com aqueles com apenas um grau primário de conhecimento odontológico (p=0,011). Da mesma forma, acadêmicos em tempo integral ou parcial tiveram uma pontuação média de conhecimento maior do que os clínicos que trabalham apenas em consultório particular (p=0,014). Alguns dentistas continuam a prescrever antibióticos inadequadamente para aliviar a dor decorrente de pulpite irreversível. Práticas de prescrição de antibióticos por dentistas com educação avançada ou envolvimento acadêmico foram melhores em comparação com os outros participantes. Há evidências claras de excesso de prescrição de antibiótico para pulpite irreversível que precisa ser tratada com urgência.

Antibiotic use for irreversible pulpitis.

BACKGROUND: Irreversible pulpitis, which is characterised by acute and intense pain, is one of the most frequent reasons that patients attend for emergency dental care. Apart from removal of the tooth, the customary way of relieving the pain of irreversible pulpitis is by drilling into the tooth, removing the inflamed pulp (nerve) and cleaning the root canal. However, a significant number of dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics to stop the pain of irreversible pulpitis.This review updates the previous version published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 18 February 2019); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 18 February 2019); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 18 February 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 18 February 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 18 February 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 18 February 2019). There were no language restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which compared pain relief with systemic antibiotics and analgesics, against placebo and analgesics in the acute preoperative phase of irreversible pulpitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. We assessed the certainty of the evidence of included studies using GRADE. Pooling of data was not possible and a descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: No additional trials could be included in this update. One trial at low risk of bias evaluating oral penicillin in combination with analgesics versus placebo with analgesics, involving 40 participants was included in a former update of the review. The certainty of the evidence was rated low for the different outcomes. Our primary outcome was patient-reported pain (intensity/duration) and pain relief. There was a close parallel distribution of the pain ratings in both the intervention (median 6.0, interquartile range (IQR) 10.5), and for placebo (median 6.0, IQR 9.5) over the seven-day study period. There was insufficient evidence to claim or refute a benefit for penicillin for pain intensity. There was no significant difference in the mean total number of ibuprofen tablets over the study period: 9.20 (standard deviation (SD) 6.02) in the penicillin group versus 9.60 (SD 6.34) in the placebo group; mean difference -0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.23 to 3.43; P = 0.84). This applied equally for the mean total number of Tylenol tablets: 6.90 (SD 6.87) used in the penicillin group versus 4.45 (SD 4.82) in the placebo group; mean difference 2.45 (95% CI -1.23 to 6.13; P = 0.19). Our secondary outcome on reporting of adverse events was not addressed in this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review which was based on one low-powered small sample trial assessed as at low risk of bias, illustrates that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether antibiotics reduce pain or not compared to not having antibiotics. The results of this review confirm the necessity for further larger sample and methodologically sound trials that can provide additional evidence as to whether antibiotics, prescribed in the preoperative phase, can affect treatment outcomes for irreversible pulpitis.

WITHDRAWN: Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic treatment of root canals or root canal treatment is a frequently performed dental procedure and is carried out on teeth in which irreversible pulpitis has led to necrosis (death) of the dental pulp (nerve). Removal of the necrotic tissue remnants and cleaning and shaping of the root canal are important phases of root canal treatment. Treatment options include the use of hand and rotary instruments and methods using ultrasonic or sonic equipment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of hand instrumentation versus ultrasonic instrumentation alone or in conjunction with hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles in an attempt to locate additional published and unpublished trials. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted in December 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving people over 18 years of age with single and multiple permanent teeth with a completely formed apex and with no evidence of internal resorption requiring root canal treatment were included. Patients undertaking re-treatment of a tooth were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies was conducted in duplicate and independently. Results were to be expressed as fixed-effect or random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No eligible randomised controlled trials were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review illustrates the current lack of published or ongoing randomised controlled trials and the unavailability of high level evidence, based on clinically relevant outcomes, for the effectiveness of ultrasonic instrumentation used alone or as an adjunct to hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment.Future randomised controlled trials might focus more closely on evaluating the effectiveness of combinations of these interventions with an emphasis on not only clinically relevant but also patient-centred outcomes.

I've got Toothache, I need Antibiotics: a UK Perspective on Rational Antibiotic Prescribing by Dentists.

Antibiotics do not cure toothache. This headline message of the United Kingdom's (UK) Dental Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) toolkit's posters and leaflets is aimed at patients; clinicians are expected to know this already. Evidence based clinical guidelines exist to set clear standards for good clinical practice yet there are barriers to compliance. The national AMS audit tool is designed for clinicians to review their management of acute dental conditions, including but not limited to the prescription of antibiotics. In this article we aim to help dental teams protect their patients and themselves from adverse events related to antibiotic prescription. It explores the emergent problem of Clostridium difficile, antibiotic resistance and severe sepsis, and considers some of the barriers, which clinicians have suggested, contribute to the unjustified prescription of antibiotics. Dentists must weigh the risks against the benefits before prescribing any antibiotic.

I've got toothache, i need antibiotics: a uk perspective on rational antibiotic prescribing by dentists

Abstract Antibiotics do not cure toothache. This headline message of the United Kingdom's (UK) Dental Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) toolkit's posters and leaflets is aimed at patients; clinicians are expected to know this already. Evidence based clinical guidelines exist to set clear standards for good clinical practice yet there are barriers to compliance. The national AMS audit tool is designed for clinicians to review their management of acute dental conditions, including but not limited to the prescription of antibiotics. In this article we aim to help dental teams protect their patients and themselves from adverse events related to antibiotic prescription. It explores the emergent problem of Clostridium difficile, antibiotic resistance and severe sepsis, and considers some of the barriers, which clinicians have suggested, contribute to the unjustified prescription of antibiotics. Dentists must weigh the risks against the benefits before prescribing any antibiotic.

Resumo Antibióticos não curam dor de dente. Tal mensagem, encontrada no título dos panfletos e cartazes da caixa de ferramentas Gerenciamento Antimicrobiano Odontológico (AMS) do Reino Unido, é direcionada aos pacientes; os clínicos já deveriam saber disso. Diretrizes clínicas baseadas em evidência existem para estabelecer padrões claros à boa prática clínica, ainda que existam barreiras para sua observância. A ferramenta AMS para monitoramento nacional é voltada para clínicos revisarem sua conduta frente às condições dentais agudas, inclusive mas não limitada à prescrição de antibióticos. Neste artigo, visa-se colaborar com equipes odontológicas a fim de protegerem a si e a seus pacientes contra situações adversas relacionadas ao uso de antibióticos. Explora-se o problema emergente do Clostridium difficile, resistência bacteriana a antimicrobianos e sepsis severa, além de considerar algumas das barreiras que clínicos têm sugerido como geradoras de prescrições inapropriadas de antibióticos. Os dentistas devem pesar riscos e benefícios antes de prescrever qualquer antibiótico.

Effects of low-carbohydrate- compared with low-fat-diet interventions on metabolic control in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review including GRADE assessments.

Background: It remains uncertain which diet is best for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Objective: We compared the effects of dietary carbohydrate restriction with fat restriction on markers of metabolic syndrome and quality of life in people with T2D. Design: This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) compares the effects of a low-carbohydrate [≤40% of energy (%)] diet with those of a low-fat (≤30%) diet over a period of ≥4 wk in patients with T2D. Two investigators independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Pooled mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs were calculated with the use of a random-effects model. Results: Thirty-three RCTs and 3 CCTs (n = 2161) were included. Glycated hemoglobin declined more in people who consumed low-carbohydrate food than in those who consumed low-fat food in the short term (MD: -1.38%; 95% CI: -2.64%, -0.11%; very-low-certainty evidence). At 1 y, the MD was reduced to -0.36% (95% CI: -0.58%, -0.14%; low-certainty evidence); at 2 y, the difference had disappeared. There is low to high (majority moderate) certainty for small improvements of unclear clinical importance in plasma glucose, triglycerides, and HDL concentrations favoring low-carbohydrate food at half of the prespecified time points. There was little to no difference in LDL concentration or any of the secondary outcomes (body weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, quality of life) in response to either of the diets (very-low- to high-certainty evidence). Conclusions: Currently available data provide low- to moderate-certainty evidence that dietary carbohydrate restriction to a maximum of 40% yields slightly better metabolic control of uncertain clinical importance than reduction in fat to a maximum of 30% in people with T2D. This systematic review is registered at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017052467 as CRD42017052467.

Resorbable versus titanium plates for orthognathic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Recognition of some of the limitations of titanium plates and screws used for the fixation of bones has led to the development of plates manufactured from bioresorbable materials. Whilst resorbable plates appear to offer clinical advantages over metal plates in orthognathic surgery, concerns remain about the stability of fixation and the length of time required for their degradation and the possibility of foreign body reactions. This review compares the use of titanium versus bioresorbable plates in orthognathic surgery and is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of bioresorbable fixation systems with titanium systems used during orthognathic surgery. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 January 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library (searched 20 January 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 January 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 January 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov; searched 20 January 2017), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 20 January 2017) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing bioresorbable versus titanium fixation systems used for orthognathic surgery in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We resolved disagreement by discussion. Clinical heterogeneity between the included trials precluded pooling of data, and only a descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: This review included two trials, involving 103 participants, one comparing titanium with resorbable plates and screws and the other titanium with resorbable screws. Both studies were at high risk of bias and provided very limited data for the primary outcomes of this review. All participants in one trial suffered mild to moderate postoperative discomfort with no statistically significant difference between the two plating groups at different follow-up times. Mean scores of patient satisfaction were 7.43 to 8.63 (range 0 to 10) with no statistically significant difference between the two groups throughout follow-up. Adverse effects reported in one study were two plate exposures in each group occurring between the third and ninth months. Plate exposures occurred mainly in the posterior maxillary region, except for one titanium plate exposure in the mandibular premolar region. Known causes of infection were associated with loosened screws and wound dehiscence with no statistically significant difference in the infection rate between titanium (3/196), and resorbable (3/165) plates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not have sufficient evidence to determine if titanium plates or resorbable plates are superior for fixation of bones after orthognathic surgery. This review provides insufficient evidence to show any difference in postoperative pain and discomfort, level of patient satisfaction, plate exposure or infection for plate and screw fixation using either titanium or resorbable materials.

Performance and Tolerability of the Moisturizers Cetaphil® and Excipial® in Atopic Dermatitis: What is the Evidence Based on Randomized Trials?

INTRODUCTION: Moisturizers play a prominent role in the management of atopic dermatitis by improving the impaired skin barrier function and enhancing skin hydration. Their efficacy was evaluated in a recently published Cochrane Review 'Emollients and moisturizers for eczema'. OBJECTIVE: In the present review, we summarize the performance and safety of Cetaphil® and Excipial® moisturizing products. METHODS: This review was carried out in compliance with standard Cochrane methodological procedures, which means independent study selection, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and analyses by two review authors. The quality of evidence for the predefined outcomes was rated with the GRADE approach. The prespecified outcomes of the review included participant assessments, satisfaction, adverse events, investigator assessments, prevention of flares, change in use of topical active treatment, skin barrier function and quality of life. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled studies examining these moisturizers were included in the previously published Cochrane Review. For the performance and tolerability of these moisturizers, there was very low to moderate quality evidence for the prespecified outcomes. CONCLUSION: The results from these four studies are in line with those of the Cochrane Review that moisturizers themselves have beneficial effects, and that combining moisturizers with active topical treatment produced better results when compared to active topical treatment alone.

Oral Spironolactone for Acne Vulgaris in Adult Females: A Hybrid Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The management of acne in adult females is problematic, with many having a history of treatment failure and some having a predisposition to androgen excess. Alternatives to oral antibiotics and combined oral contraceptives (COCs) are required. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to conduct a hybrid systematic review of the evidence for benefits and potential harms of oral spironolactone in the management of acne in adult females. METHODS: The review was conducted according to a previously published protocol. Three reviewers independently selected relevant studies from the search results, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and rated the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 case series were retrieved. All trials were assessed as being at a 'high risk' of bias, and the quality of evidence was rated as low or very low for all outcomes. Apart from one crossover trial that demonstrated statistical superiority of a 200 mg daily dose versus inflamed lesions compared with placebo, data from the remaining trials were unhelpful in establishing the degree of efficacy of lower doses versus active comparators or placebo. Menstrual side effects were significantly more common with the 200 mg dose; frequency could be significantly reduced by concomitant use of a COC. Pooling of results for serum potassium supported the recent recommendation that routine monitoring is not required in this patient population. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of RCTs and case series identified evidence of limited quality to underpin the expert endorsement of spironolactone at the doses typically used (≤100 mg/day) in everyday clinical practice.

Emollients and moisturisers for eczema.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is a chronic skin disease characterised by dry skin, intense itching, inflammatory skin lesions, and a considerable impact on quality of life. Moisturisation is an integral part of treatment, but it is unclear if moisturisers are effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of moisturisers for eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to December 2015: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database. We searched five trials registers and checked references of included and excluded studies for further relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with eczema. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 77 studies (6603 participants, mean age: 18.6 years, mean duration: 6.7 weeks). We assessed 36 studies as at a high risk of bias, 34 at unclear risk, and seven at low risk. Twenty-four studies assessed our primary outcome 'participant-assessed disease severity', 13 assessed 'satisfaction', and 41 assessed 'adverse events'. Secondary outcomes included investigator-assessed disease severity (addressed in 65 studies), skin barrier function (29), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (eight). Adverse events reporting was limited (smarting, stinging, pruritus, erythema, folliculitis).Six studies evaluated moisturiser versus no moisturiser. 'Participant-assessed disease severity' and 'satisfaction' were not assessed. Moisturiser use yielded lower SCORAD than no moisturiser (three studies, 276 participants, mean difference (MD) -2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -0.28), but the minimal important difference (MID) (8.7) was unmet. There were fewer flares with moisturisers (two studies, 87 participants, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70), time to flare was prolonged (median: 180 versus 30 days), and less topical corticosteroids were needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30 g, 95% CI -15.3 to -3.27). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (one study, 173 participants, risk ratio (RR) 15.34, 95% CI 0.90 to 261.64). Evidence for these outcomes was low quality.With Atopiclair (three studies), 174/232 participants experienced improvement in participant-assessed disease severity versus 27/158 allocated to vehicle (RR 4.51, 95% CI 2.19 to 9.29). Atopiclair decreased itching (four studies, 396 participants, MD -2.65, 95% CI -4.21 to -1.09) and achieved more frequent satisfaction (two studies, 248 participants, RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.89), fewer flares (three studies, 397 participants, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31), and lower EASI (four studies, 426 participants, MD -4.0, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.57), but MID (6.6) was unmet. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically different (four studies, 430 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33). Evidence for these outcomes was moderate quality.Participants reported skin improvement more frequently with urea-containing cream than placebo (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53; low-quality evidence), with equal satisfaction between the two groups (one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). Urea-containing cream improved dryness (investigator-assessed) more frequently (one study, 128 participants, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.71; moderate-quality evidence) with fewer flares (one study, 44 participants, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92; low-quality evidence), but more participants in this group reported adverse events (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.34; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus vehicle or placebo. More participants in the glycerol group noticed skin improvement (one study, 134 participants, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; moderate-quality evidence), and this group saw improved investigator-assessed SCORAD (one study, 249 participants, MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.96; high-quality evidence), but MID was unmet. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically significant (two studies, 385 participants, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence).Four studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or vehicle. No significant differences between groups were reported for participant-assessed disease severity (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), satisfaction (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.52; very low-quality evidence), and investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 272 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.21; low-quality evidence). In the oat group, there were fewer flares (one study, 43 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; low-quality evidence) and less topical corticosteroids needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30g, 95% CI 15.3 to -3.27; low-quality evidence), but more adverse events were reported (one study, 173 participants; Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.26, 95% CI 1.76 to 29.92; low-quality evidence).All moisturisers above were compared to placebo, vehicle, or no moisturiser. Participants considered moisturisers more effective in reducing eczema (five studies, 572 participants, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; low-quality evidence) and itch (seven studies, 749 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38) than control. Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (three studies, 296 participants, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.26; low-quality evidence). Moisturisers led to lower investigator-assessed disease severity (12 studies, 1281 participants, SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.51; high-quality evidence) and fewer flares (six studies, 607 participants, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference in adverse events (10 studies, 1275 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; moderate-quality evidence).Topical active treatment combined with moisturiser was more effective than active treatment alone in reducing investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 192 participants, SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.57; moderate-quality evidence) and flares (one study, 105 participants, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93), and was preferred by participants (both low-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in number of adverse events (one study, 125 participants, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; very low-quality evidence). Participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.