A protocol for the Development of Core Outcome Sets for Endodontic Treatment modalities (COSET): an international consensus process.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of endodontic treatment is generally assessed using a range of patient and clinician-centred, non-standardised clinical and radiographic outcome measures. This makes it difficult to synthesise evidence for systematic analysis of the literature and the development of clinical guidelines. Core outcome sets (COS) represent a standardised list of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical studies in a particular field. Recently, clinical researchers and guideline developers have focussed on the need for the integration of a patient-reported COS with clinician-centred measures. This study aims to develop a COS that includes both patient-reported outcomes and clinician-centred measures for various endodontic treatment modalities to be used in clinical research and practice. METHODS: To identify reported outcomes (including when and how they are measured), systematic reviews and their included clinical studies, which focus on the outcome of endodontic treatment and were published between 1990 and 2020 will be screened. The COSs will be defined by a consensus process involving key stakeholders using semi-structured interviews and an online Delphi methodology followed by an interactive virtual consensus meeting. A heterogeneous group of key 'stakeholders' including patients, general dental practitioners, endodontists, endodontic teachers, clinical researchers, students and policy-makers will be invited to participate. Patients will establish, via interactive interviews, which outcomes they value and feel should be included in a COS. In the Delphi process, other stakeholders will be asked to prioritise outcomes identified from the literature and patient interviews and will have the opportunity at the end of the first round to add outcomes that are not included, but which they consider relevant. Feedback will be provided in the second round, when participants will be asked to prioritise the list again. If consensus is reached, the remaining outcomes will be discussed at an online meeting and agreement established via defined consensus rules of outcome inclusion. If consensus is not reached after the second round, a third round will be conducted with feedback, followed by the online meeting. Following the identification of a COS, we will proceed to identify how and when these outcomes are measured. DISCUSSION: Using a rigorous methodology, the proposed consensus process aims to develop a COS for endodontic treatment that will be relevant to stakeholders. The results of the study will be shared with participants and COS users. To increase COS uptake, it will also be actively shared with clinical guideline developers, research funders and the editors of general dental and endodontology journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COMET 1879. 21 May 2021.

The association between apical periodontitis and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The association between adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) and maternal apical periodontitis remains unclear as it has not been examined rigorously or reviewed systematically. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and critically evaluate the available evidence on the association of maternal apical periodontitis with several APOs. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), from inception to 25 February 2021, with no language restrictions. Observational studies including longitudinal clinical trials, cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies of prospective and retrospective design were included. Articles with duplicate or overlapping results, abstract-only papers, case reports, case series, animal studies and reviews were excluded. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data extraction and appraising the included studies; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the adapted form of the NOS were used to assess the quality for case-control and cross-sectional studies, respectively. RESULTS: Two case-control and one cross-sectional study were included in the current review. The included studies were published between 2015 and 2017, with a total of 1187 participating individuals with an approximate age range of 15 to 40 years. As the included studies reported different outcomes, the heterogeneity of data prevented a meta-analysis being undertaken. The overall quality of the evidence was 'Fair' for two out of three included studies, while one study was categorized as 'Good'. DISCUSSION: Two out of three included primary studies had a substantial number of methodological inconsistencies and flaws, and therefore caution should be exercised in interpreting the results of this systematic review because several important covariates were not considered in the original investigations. CONCLUSION: Based on a limited volume and 'Fair' and 'Good' quality of evidence, a positive association between maternal apical periodontitis and APOs was observed. However, more 'Good' quality clinical studies are needed to confirm the results of the current review. FUNDING: None REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42-2191987).

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist.

AIM: To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of clinical trials published in Endodontics against the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and to analyse the association between the quality of reported trials and a variety of parameters. METHODOLOGY: Fifty randomized clinical trials relating to Endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database from 2015 to 2019 and evaluated by two independent reviewers. For each trial, a score of '1' was awarded when it fully reported each item in the PRIRATE guidelines whereas a score of '0' was awarded when an item was not reported; when the item was reported inadequately a score of '0.5' was awarded. For the items that were not relevant to the trial, 'Not Applicable (NA)' was given. Based on the interquartile range of the overall scores received, trials were categorized into 'Low' (0-58.4%), 'Moderate' (58.5-72.8%) and 'High' (72.9-100%) quality. The associations between characteristics and quality of clinical trials were investigated. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and percentage analyses were used to describe the data. To determine the significance of categorical data, the chi-square test was used. The probability value 0.05 was considered as the level of significance. RESULTS: Based on the overall scores, 13 (26%), 25(50%) and 12 (24%) of the reports of clinical trials were categorized as 'High', 'Moderate' and 'Low' quality, respectively. Three items (1b, 6d, 11e) were adequately reported in all manuscripts whilst two items (5k, 5m) were scored 'NA' in all the reports. The reports published from Europe had a significantly greater percentage of 'High'-quality scores, compared to Asia, Middle East, North America and South America (P = 0.0002). The 'High'-quality reports were published significantly more often in impact factor journals (P = 0.045). Reports of clinical trials published in journals that adhered to the CONSORT guidelines had significantly more 'High' scores compared to those that did not (P = 0.008). Clinical trials with protocols registered a priori had a significantly greater percentage of 'High' scores compared to the trials that were not registered in advance (P = 0.003). No significant difference occurred between the quality of clinical trials and the number of authors, journal (Endodontic specialty vs. Non-Endodontic specialty) or year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: Reports of randomized clinical trials published in the speciality of Endodontics had a substantial number of deficiencies. To create high-quality reports of clinical trials, authors should comply with the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines.

Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) guidelines: a development protocol.

Diagnostic accuracy studies play an important role in informing clinical practice and patient management, by evaluating the ability of diagnostic testing and imaging to identify the presence or absence of a disease or condition. These studies compare the relative diagnostic strength of the test or device with a reference standard, therefore, guiding clinical decisions on the reliability of the test, the need for further tests, and whether to monitor or treat a particular condition. Inadequate and incomplete reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies can disguise methodological deficiencies and ultimately result in study bias and the inability to translate research findings into daily clinical practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) guidelines are being developed in order to improve the accuracy, transparency, completeness and reproducibility of diagnostic accuracy studies in the speciality of Endodontology. The aim of this paper is to report the process used to develop the PRIDASE guidelines based on a well-established consensus process. The project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee of nine members (PD, VN, PA, AF, DR, SP, CK, MP, HD) to oversee and manage the project. The PRIDASE steering committee will develop the initial draft of the PRIDASE guidelines by adapting and modifying the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines, adding new items related specifically to the nature of Endodontics and incorporate the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The initial guidelines will consist of a series of domains and individual items and will be validated by the members of a PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of a minimum of 30 individuals who will evaluate independently the individual items based on two parameters: 'clarity' using a dichotomous scoring (yes/no) and 'suitability' for inclusion using a 9-point Likert Scale. The scores awarded by each member and any suggestions for improvement will be shared with the PDG to inform an iterative process that will result in a series of items that are clear and suitable for inclusion in the new PRIDASE guidelines. Once the PDG has completed its work, the steering committee will create a PRIDASE Meeting Group (PMG) of 20 individuals from around the world. Members of the PDG will be eligible to be the part of PMG. The draft guidelines and flowchart approved by the PDG will then be presented for further validation and agreement by the PMG. As a result of these discussions, the PRIDASE guidelines will be finalized and then disseminated to relevant stakeholders through publications and via the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org). Periodic updates to the PRIDASE guidelines will be made based on feedback from stakeholders and end-users.

Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology (ESE) S3 level clinical practice guidelines: a protocol.

The European Society of Endodontology (ESE) is in the process of developing S3Level Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease for the benefit of clinicians and patients. In order to ensure a homogenous review process in the development of the clinical practice guidelines, it is essential that the core outcomes for all endodontic treatments are standardized and recommendations are made regarding minimum follow-up time specific to each outcome measure. In the absence of a recognized core outcome set in Endodontics, the current project aimed to follow an established consensus process to define the most appropriate clinician and patient-reported outcomes. As part of the project, recommendations will also be agreed regarding an acceptable minimum follow-up period for studies by literature review and group discussion. The selected outcome measures and follow-up periods will be used in subsequent systematic analyses of the literature to investigate the effectiveness of endodontic treatment to alleviate pulpitis and apical periodontitis. In this paper, previous reviews, ESE Guidelines and Position Statements were searched in order to compile a list of potentially important outcome measures for the treatment of pulpitis (working group 1), the nonsurgical treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 2), the surgical treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 3) and the regenerative treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 4). Initially, the two S3 guideline leads selected two independent senior clinical academics with experience of evidence-based dentistry to lead each of the four working groups forming a 10-member steering group. The working group leads in turn selected 32 academics with experience of evidence-based dentistry to lead the individual systematic reviews contained within the respective working groups. These 42 individuals make up the Guideline Development Group (GDG). Prior to the selected systematic reviewers commencing writing and submitting the review protocol, the complete list of outcome variables identified in this document will be ranked by the 42 members of the GDG in their importance to the individual patient using a 9-point Likert scale. A summary of the survey scores will thereafter be shared with the members of the group and the final list of clinician and patient-reported outcome measures rated as critical for decision making (7-9 on Likert scale by majority of survey participants) to guide systematic reviews will be consented and confirmed during an online meeting of the steering group. In this online meeting, another aspect with regard to meaningfulness of clinical trial results to be addressed in systematic reviews will be consented: length of follow-up. In order to develop high quality guidelines, it is suggested that the follow-up period after treatment should be related to the specific outcome measure being addressed; however, a minimum of one year for assessing the effectiveness of treatments for pulpitis and apical periodontitis should be considered. It is accepted, that selected research questions that focus on pain, swelling, medication taken or investigating diagnostic accuracy are likely to have shorter follow-up periods. As a result of the GDG consensus process, the outcome measures and length of follow-up will, alongside the use of standard instruments to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials and other comparative studies, be applied to all the commissioned systematic reviews that will inform the subsequent process when developing the ESE S3 Level Clinical Practice Guidelines.

European Society of Endodontology position statement: Surgical extrusion, intentional replantation and tooth autotransplantation: European Society of Endodontology developed by.

This European Society of Endodontology (ESE) position statement on surgical extrusion, intentional replantation and tooth autotransplantation represents the consensus of an expert committee, convened by the ESE. A narrative review in the International Endodontic Journal (Plotino et al. 2020, international Endodontic Journal, 53, 1636-52) formed the basis for the position statement. The review provided detailed information on the background, clinical procedures and the outcome of surgical extrusion, intentional replantation and tooth autotransplantation techniques. The aim of the current statement is to summarize the best available evidence on these clinical techniques to provide appropriate clinical guidance to undergraduate and postgraduate students, dental practitioners, clinical teachers and researchers. The current position statement will be updated by the ESE periodically to reflect new evidence as it becomes available to provide the most current treatment guidance for clinical practice.

PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration.

Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus-based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).

PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: a consensus-based development.

Animal testing is crucial in situations when research on humans is not allowed because of unknown health risks and ethical concerns. The current project aims to develop reporting guidelines exclusively for animal studies in Endodontology, using an established consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named: Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021. Nine individuals (PD, VN, AK, PM, MN, JF, EP, JJ and SJ), including the project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee. The steering committee developed a novel checklist by adapting and integrating their animal testing and peer review experience with the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and also the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) were also formed. Thirty-one PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that were used to formulate the PRIASE guidelines. The novel PRIASE 2021 guidelines were discussed with the POMG on 9 September 2020 via a Zoom online video call attended by 21 individuals from across the globe and seven steering committee members. Following the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript involving research on animals. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are a checklist consisting of 11 domains and 43 individual items together with a flowchart. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are focused on improving the methodological principles, reproducibility and quality of animal studies in order to enhance their reliability as well as repeatability to estimate the effects of endodontic treatments and usefulness for guiding future clinical studies on humans.

Glossary for randomized clinical trials.

Randomized clinical trials are positioned at the highest level of primary clinical evidence, as they are designed to be unbiased with a reduced risk of systematic error. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first developed in 1996 to improve the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials with updates being published subsequently. Recently, the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for the field of Endodontics to address the suboptimal quality of randomized clinical trials submitted to Endodontic journals, which result in many being rejected. A principal flaw in submissions is the fact that many authors are unclear on the keys terms that should be used when developing manuscripts for publication. Clearly, authors should be aware of the most common terms used when conducting and reporting randomized clinical trials. Hence, the aim of the current paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of the terminology used in randomized clinical trials in order to assist authors when designing, executing and writing-up randomized clinical trials.

Comparing the anaesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks for teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: The scientific literature is contradictory in relation to selecting the appropriate volume of local anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) when attempting to anaesthetize mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs when treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases until May 2020. Randomized clinical trials published in English, comparing 1.8 with 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs in permanent mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis, were included. The risk of bias of the included trials was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The effect of random errors on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Four clinical trials involving 280 teeth from patients with ages ranging from 18 to 65 years were included. Among the four trials, three were categorized as having a 'low' risk of bias and one was categorized as having 'some concerns'. The primary meta-analysis revealed that 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution when administered for IANBs was associated with significantly greater success rates compared with 1.8 mL (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07, 3.52; I2  = 77%). Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (restricting trials only to those that used the Heft-Parker visual analogue pain scale) revealed that the use of 3.6 mL significantly increased the success of IANBs compared with 1.8 mL. The trial sequential analysis confirmed the evidence for the beneficial effect of 3.6 mL to achieve success for IANBs was 'conclusive'. The quality of evidence was graded as 'high'. CONCLUSION: Increasing the volume of anaesthetic solution from 1.8 to 3.6 mL improved the success rate for IANBs in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. The quality of the evidence was 'high'. Future high-quality clinical trials are required with different types of anaesthetic solutions and other types of teeth.

Effect of preoperative oral administration of steroids in comparison to an anti-inflammatory drug on postoperative pain following single-visit root canal treatment - a double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

AIM: This randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial evaluated the effect of oral premedication of piroxicam, prednisolone, dexamethasone or placebo on postoperative pain after single-visit root canal treatment in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis. METHODOLOGY: The trial is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines. The protocol was registered at the clinical trial registry (India) (CTRI/2019/06/019818). In total, 160 patients, assigned to four groups, received orally either 20 mg piroxicam, 20 mg prednisolone, 4 mg dexamethasone or a placebo 60 min before root canal treatment. Patients recorded their postoperative pain intensity at 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h using a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Intergroup comparison was performed using Kruskal-Wallis tests with post hoc analysis using Dunns test. Incidence of pain was analysed using chi-square tests. A P value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the odds of postoperative pain, with incidence of pain as the dependent variable and intervention groups, gender, age and type of tooth as independent variables. RESULTS: In total, 156 patients were analysed in the trial, since four patients dropped out during follow-up. All drugs were associated with a significantly lower incidence of postoperative pain compared to the placebo at 6 h (P = 0.009), 12 h (P = 0.003) and 24 h (P = 0.008). Mean intensity of pain was significantly more intense at 6, 12 and 24 h with the use of placebo in comparison to the other three intervention groups (P < 0.05). Intensity of pain was not significantly different between the premedications used (P > 0.05). One patient in the piroxicam group reported gastritis, whereas no adverse effects were recorded in other groups. CONCLUSION: Preoperative oral administration of a single dose of 4 mg dexamethasone, 20 mg piroxicam or 20 mg prednisolone reduced the incidence and severity of postoperative pain following single-visit root canal treatment compared to a placebo in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis up to 24 h. The odds of postoperative pain at 24 h for patients premedicated with 4 mg dexamethasone or 20 mg piroxicam or 20 mg prednisolone were 5.3 times, 3.4 times and 2.5 times less compared to the placebo, respectively.

Clinical procedures and outcome of surgical extrusion, intentional replantation and tooth autotransplantation - a narrative review.

Surgical extrusion is defined as the procedure in which the remaining tooth structure is repositioned at a more coronal/supragingival position in the same socket in which the tooth was located originally. Intentional replantation is defined as the deliberate extraction of a tooth and after evaluation of root surfaces, endodontic manipulation and repair, placement of the tooth back into its original position. Tooth autotransplantation is defined as the transplantation of an unerupted or erupted tooth in the same individual, from one site to another extraction site or a new surgically prepared socket. The advent of titanium implant rehabilitation has reduced the use of these treatments in day-by-day clinical practice; however, the re-emerging trend to conserve and preserve natural sound tissues has led to a rediscovery of these treatments. All three distinct surgical methods are closely related, as they act to treat teeth that cannot be predictably treated using other more conventional procedures in endodontics, periodontics and restorative dentistry. Furthermore, these procedures share the same treatment approach and include the atraumatic extraction of a tooth, visual inspection of the tooth/root and its subsequent replantation. The clinical procedures for surgical extrusion, intentional replantation and tooth autotransplantation treatment have undergone several changes in recent years, and currently, there are no clear clinical treatment protocols/guidelines available. The clinician should be aware of the outcome of these treatments. Hence, the aim of this narrative review is to provide the background, clinical procedures and outcomes of surgical extrusion, intentional replantation and tooth autotransplantation.

Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: The existence of an association between cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and apical periodontitis (AP) remains unclear because results obtained from previous clinical studies and reviews are inconsistent or inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between CVDs and the prevalence of AP in adults. METHODS: The protocol of the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020185753). The literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to May, 2020, with no language restrictions. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that evaluated the association between CVDs and AP were included. Other types of studies, including narrative reviews, were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed a literature search, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Any disagreements or doubts were resolved by a third reviewer. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 16 items. A final categorization of the systematic reviews classified each as of 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'critically low' quality. RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included in the current review. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'moderate' quality, whereas one review was graded as 'critically low' quality. DISCUSSION: Only one systematic review included a meta-analysis. Substantial heterogeneity amongst the primary studies included within each systematic review was notable in preventing a pooled analysis. CONCLUSIONS: From the limited 'moderate' to 'critically low' quality evidence available, the current umbrella review concluded that a weak association exists between CVDs and AP. In the future, well-designed, longitudinal clinical studies with long-term follow-up are required.

Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) guidelines: a development protocol.

Observational studies have a significant role in establishing the prevalence and incidence of diseases in populations, as well as determining the benefits and risks associated with health-related interventions. Observational studies principally encompass cohort, case-control, case series and cross-sectional designs. Inadequate reporting of observational studies is likely to have a negative impact on decision-making in day-to-day clinical practice; however, no reporting guidelines have been published for observational studies in Endodontics. The aim of this project is to develop reporting guidelines for authors when creating manuscripts describing observational studies in the field of Endodontology in an attempt to improve the quality of publications. The new guidelines for observational studies will be named: 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE)'. A steering committee was formed by the project leaders (PD, VN) to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The steering committee will review and adapt items from the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as identify new items that add value to Endodontics. The steering committee will create a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG), consisting of 30 members across the globe to review and refine the draft checklist items and flowchart. The items will be assessed by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PROBE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) made up of 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. After receiving feedback from the PFMG, the steering committee will pilot and finalize the guidelines. The approved PROBE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, and be presented at national and international conferences. The PROBE checklist and flowchart will be available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontics (PRIDE) website: www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org. The PROBE steering committee encourages clinicians, researchers, editors and peer reviewers to provide feedback on the PROBE guidelines to inform the steering group when the guidelines are updated.

PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: explanation and elaboration.

Well-designed and properly conducted randomized clinical trials provide a true estimate of the effects of interventions and are acknowledged as the gold standard in terms of clinical study design. However, the quality of randomized clinical trials published in the field of Endodontics is suboptimal. The Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for Endodontics by integrating and adapting the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, through an accepted and well-documented consensus process. Full implementation of the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines will minimize potential sources of bias and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication, which will ultimately improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials in Endodontics. The aim of this document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature in order to help authors understand their rationale and significance. A link to this PRIRATE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prirate/.

PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: a consensus-based development.

In evidence-based health care, randomized clinical trials provide the most accurate and reliable information on the effectiveness of an intervention. This project aimed to develop reporting guidelines, exclusively for randomized clinical trials in the dental specialty of Endodontology, using a well-documented, validated consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020. A total of eight individuals (PD, VN, HD, LB, TK, JJ, EP and SP), including the project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee. The committee developed a checklist based on the items in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIRATE Face-to-Face Meeting group (PFMG) were also formed. Thirty PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that make up the PRIRATE guidelines. The guidelines were discussed at a meeting of the PFMG at the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial congress, held on 13 September 2019 in Vienna, Austria. A total of 21 individuals from across the globe and four steering committee members (PD, VN, HD and LB) attended the meeting. As a consequence of the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript. The PRIRATE 2020 guidelines contain a checklist consisting of 11 sections and 58 individual items as well as a flowchart, considered essential for authors to include when writing manuscripts for randomized clinical trials in Endodontics.