A quality assessment of randomized controlled trial reports in endodontics

Lucena, Cristina; Souza, Erick Miranda; Voinea, G. C.; Pulgar, Rosa; Valderrama, Mariano J.; De‐Deus, Gustavo

doi:10.1111/iej.12626

Cited by 35 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study confirms the low quality of randomized controlled trials in endodontics (Lucena et al . ). Although a few BECs have shown promising results in clinical applications, the number of investigations that evaluated them was low, and their long‐term efficacy is unknown.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview – part II: other clinical applications and complications

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a dental material used extensively for vital pulp therapies (VPT), protecting scaffolds during regenerative endodontic procedures, apical barriers in teeth with necrotic pulps and open apices, perforation repairs as well as root canal filling and root-end filling during surgical endodontics. A number of bioactive endodontic cements (BECs) have recently been introduced to the market. Most of these materials have calcium and silicate in their compositions; however, bioactivity is a common property of these cements. These materials include the following: BioAggregate, Biodentine, BioRoot RCS, calciumenriched mixture cement, Endo-CPM, Endocem, EndoSequence, EndoBinder, EndoSeal MTA, iRoot, MicroMega MTA, MTA Bio, MTA Fillapex, MTA Plus, Neo MTA Plus, Ortho MTA, Quick-Set, Retro MTA, Tech Biosealer, and TheraCal LC. It has been claimed that these materials have properties similar to those of MTA but without the drawbacks. In Part I of this review, the available information on the chemical composition of the materials listed above was reviewed and their applications for VPT was discussed. In this article, the clinical applications of MTA and other BECs will be reviewed for apexification, regenerative endodontics, perforation repair, root canal filling, root-end filling, restorative procedures, periodontal defects and treatment of vertical and horizontal root fractures. In addition, the literature regarding the possible drawbacks of these materials following their clinical applications is reviewed. These drawbacks include their discolouration potential, systemic effects and retreatability following use as a root filling material. Based on selected keywords, all publications were searched regarding the use of MTA as well as BECs for the relevant clinical applications. Numerous publications were found regarding the use of BECs for various endodontic applications. The majority of these investigations compared BECs with MTA. Despite promising results for some materials, the number of publications using BECs for various clinical applications was limited. Furthermore, most studies had several methodological shortcomings and low levels of evidence.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview – part II: other clinical applications and complications

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…); nevertheless, reports of many trials remain suboptimal (Chan & Altman ), including in the field of Endodontics (Lucena et al . , Nagendrababu et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Normally, papers published in the last 10 years have only a small probability of appearing in the list of the most frequently cited articles in any field of research. Even so, 73 out of the 100 Top 100 evidence level 1 articles in endodontics Ahmad et al papers were published in the last 10 years, that is field of Endodontics (Lucena et al 2017, Nagendrababu et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A bibliometric study of the top 100 most‐cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses published in endodontic journals

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To identify and analyse the main features of the top 100 most‐cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses published in endodontic journals from 1961 to 2018. Methodology The Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science ‘All Databases’ was used to search and analyse the 100 most frequently cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses having ‘randomized’, ‘randomised’, ‘randomized controlled’, ‘randomised controlled’, ‘randomized controlled trial’, ‘randomized controlled trials’, ‘clinical trial’, ‘systematic’, ‘systematic review’, ‘meta‐analysis’, and ‘meta‐analyses’ in the title section. The ‘International Endodontic Journal’, ‘Journal of Endodontics’, ‘Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology’, ‘Australian Endodontic Journal’, ‘Endodontics & Dental Traumatology’, ‘Endo‐Endodontic Practice Today’ and ‘European Endodontic Journal’ were included in the publication name section. After ranking the articles in a descending order based on their citation counts, each article was cross‐matched with the citation counts in Elsevier's Scopus and Google Scholar. The articles were analysed, and information on citation counts, citation density, year of publication, contributing authors, institutions and countries, journal of publication, study design, topic of the article and keywords was extracted. Results The citation counts of the 100 most‐cited articles varied from 235 to 20 (Web of Science), 276 to 17 (Scopus) and 696 to 1 (Google Scholar). The year in which the top 100 articles were published was 2010 (n = 13). Among 373 authors, the greatest number of articles was associated with three individuals namely Reader A (n = 5), Beck M (n = 5) and Kvist T (n = 5). Most of the articles originated from the United States (n = 24) with the greatest contribution from Ohio State University (USA) (n = 5). Randomized controlled trials were the most frequent study design (n = 45) followed by systematic reviews (n = 30) with outcome studies of root canal treatment being the major topic (n = 35). The Journal of Endodontics published the largest number of included articles (n = 70) followed by the International Endodontic Journal (n = 27). Among 259 unique keywords, meta‐analysis (n = 23) and systematic review (n = 23) were the most frequently used. Conclusion This study has revealed that year of publication had no obvious impact on citation count. The bibliometric analysis highlighted the quantity and quality of research, and the evolution of scientific advancements made in the field of Endodontology over time. Articles before 1996, that is prior to the CONSORT statement that encouraged authors to include specific terms in the title and keywords, may not have been included in this electronic search.

show abstract

“…The findings of homogeneous RCTs can be pooled statistically by conducting meta-analyses that lay at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of evidence (Ismail & Bader 2004, Dhar 2016. This distilled and synthesized evidence then forms the foundation to create evidence-based guidelines and policies by providing accessible data to support informed decision-making (Dhar 2016, Lucena et al 2017. However, RCTs are often subject to bias if they have weak study designs, retrospective power calculations and/or poorly reported methodological standards, such as unclear description of the sampling or randomization procedures, blinded interventions or evaluation of outcome measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CONSORT statements are the most widely used, frequently endorsed and well-reported in the literature. It has been reported that the CONSORT statements have improved the quality of RCTs in the medical and dental fields (Kane et al 2007, Vere & Joshi 2011, Lucena et al 2017). Furthermore, a number of complementary guidelines have been developed by modifying the CON-SORT statements to specific medical specialties, such as infertility treatments (Improving the Reporting of Clinical Trials of Infertility Treatments (IMPRINT)) (Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group 2014), herbal interventions (Gagnier et al 2016) and acupuncture (STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA)) (MacPherson et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) guidelines: a development protocol

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Randomized clinical trials are acknowledged as the most appropriate methodology for demonstrating the efficacy or effectiveness of one intervention as opposed to another and thus play a major role in clinical decision‐making. However, it is recognized that despite the existence of various guidelines, for example, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, the quality of manuscripts describing randomized trials is often suboptimal. The current project aims to develop and disseminate new guidelines, Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE), to improve the planning and reporting quality of randomized trials in the field of Endodontics. The project leads (VN, PD) designed a robust process to develop the PRIRATE guidelines. At first, a steering committee of eight members, including the project leads, was formed. Thereafter, a five‐stage consensus process will be followed: initial steps, pre‐meeting activities, face‐to‐face consensus meeting, post‐meeting activities and post‐publication activities. The steering committee will develop the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines by identifying relevant and important items from various sources including the CONSORT guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. This will be followed by the establishment of a PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members. The individual items of the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines developed by the steering committee will be evaluated and scored on a 9‐point Likert scale by the PDG members. Items with a score of seven and above by more than 70% of PDG members will be included in the second draft of the guidelines, and the Delphi process will be repeated until each item fulfils the set conditions. After obtaining consensus from the PDG, the PRIRATE guidelines will be discussed by 20 selected individuals within a PRIRATE Face‐to‐face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG) to arrive at a final consensus. The final PRIRATE guidelines will be accompanied with an explanation and elaboration document developed by the steering committee and approved by six members, three from the PDG and three from the PFCMG. The PRIRATE guidelines will be published in journals and actively disseminated to educational institutions, national and international academic societies and presented at scientific meetings. The steering committee will periodically revise and update the PRIRATE guidelines based on feedback from stakeholders.

show abstract

A quality assessment of randomized controlled trial reports in endodontics

Abstract: The quality of RCT reports in key areas for internal validity of the study was poor. Several measures, such as compliance with the CONSORT guidelines, are important in order to raise the quality of RCTs in Endodontics.

Cited by 35 publications

References 51 publications

Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview – part II: other clinical applications and complications

Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview – part II: other clinical applications and complications

A bibliometric study of the top 100 most‐cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses published in endodontic journals

Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) guidelines: a development protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About