No abstract

IntroductionFew studies have assessed the nature and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).Methods and FindingsThe aims of this systematic review are to evaluate the characteristics (including the risk of bias assessment) of RCT conducted in LAC according to funding source. A review of RCTs published in 2010 in which the author's affiliation was from LAC was performed in PubMed and LILACS. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were risk of bias assessment and funding source. A total of 1,695 references were found in PubMed and LILACS databases, of which 526 were RCTs (N = 73.513 participants). English was the dominant publication language (93%) and most of the RCTs were published in non-LAC journals (84.2%). Only five of the 19 identified countries accounted for nearly 95% of all RCTs conducted in the region (Brazil 70.9%, Mexico 10.1%, Argentina 5.9%, Colombia 3.8%, and Chile 3.4%). Few RCTs covered priority areas related with Millennium Development Goals like maternal health (6.7%) or high priority infectious diseases (3.8%). Regarding children, 3.6% and 0.4% RCT evaluated nutrition and diarrhea interventions respectively but none pneumonia. As a comparison, aesthetic and sport related interventions account for 4.6% of all trials. A random sample of RCTs (n = 358) was assessed for funding source: exclusively public (33.8%); private (e.g. pharmaceutical company) (15.3%); other (e.g. mixed, NGO) (15.1%); no funding (35.8%). Overall assessments for risk of bias showed no statistically significant differences between RCTs and type of funding source. Statistically significant differences favoring private and others type of funding was found when assessing trial registration and conflict of interest reporting.ConclusionFindings of this study could be used to provide more direction for future research to facilitate innovation, improve health outcomes or address priority health problems.

ASENJO-LOBOS, C.; JOFRE, J.; CORTES, M. & MANTEROLA, C. Use of antibiotics in dental implant surgery: a decision based on evidence from systematic review. Int. J. Odontostomat., 9(1):137-147, 2015.ABSTRACT: Questions remain whether postoperative infections and implant failure can be reduced with the use of antibiotics. Especially, when its routine use can cause adverse effects and may contribute to the development of antibioticresistant bacteria. Moreover, there is no consensus regarding appropriate dosage regimen of antibiotics to prevent bacterial infection in implant dentistry. To determine effectiveness of different antibiotics regimens to prevent early infection after implant placement. A systematic review of all relevant studies addressing the use of antibiotic for dental implant surgery was carried-out. Implant groups not using antibiotics, were also analyzed. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative infection and frequency of implant failure due to infection. From 164 articles reviewed, 11 fulfilled the selection criteria representing 9472 placed implants. Regimens associated with the use of postoperative antibiotics showed a lower incidence of early infection (postoperative regimens 0%, pre and postoperative regimens 0.22% and 0.53%, long-and short-course, respectively (P= 0.275)). Regarding failure due to infection, no differences between groups were found (P= 0.249). A trend favoring the use of postoperative antibiotic to prevent early infections was observed. Further studies should be carried out in order to provide evidence-based clinical guidelines for use of antibiotics in dental implant placement.ASENJO-LOBOS, C.; JOFRE, J.; CORTES, M. & MANTEROLA, C. Use of antibiotics in dental implant surgery: a decision based on evidence from systematic review.Int. J. Odontostomat., 9(1):137-147, 2015.