Establishing a Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatment modalities

Karim, Ikhlas El; Duncan, Henry F.; Cushley, Siobhan; Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu; Kirkevang, Lise‐Lotte; Kruse, Casper; Chong, B. S.; Shah, Pratik; Lappin, Mark; McLister, Conor; Lundy, Fionnuala T.; Clarke, Michael

doi:10.1111/iej.13749

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected in this area of emerging research, there is a lack of consensus and standardization of reporting outcomes and therefore a need for the development of a COS for revitalization and eventually other RETs (El Karim et al, 2021 , 2022 ). It is clear from the outcome of this review that most of the outcomes reported are clinician‐focused with few if any patient‐reported outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on revitalization: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Revitalization is a type of regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) that offers the exciting prospect of revitalizing damaged tissue, therefore improving outcomes for non‐vital immature teeth. To evaluate its potential, there needs to be consistency in outcome reporting of clinical studies investigating revitalization to allow for evidence synthesis and inform clinical decision making. Objectives The aim of this scoping review was to identify outcomes that are reported in systematic reviews on revitalization including how and when these outcomes are measured. Additionally, evidence of selective reporting bias in the reviews was assessed. Methods A comprehensive electronic search of healthcare databases and grey literature was conducted to identify systematic reviews published in the English language reporting outcomes of revitalization in permanent immature teeth. There was no restriction on the date of publication. Outcome data was extracted by four reviewers independently and mapped with a healthcare taxonomy into five core areas: survival, clinical/physiological changes, life impact, resource use and adverse events. Selective reporting bias and how it was measured was assessed independently by two reviewers. Results Twenty‐six systematic reviews were included in this scoping review. There was lack of standardization in reporting and significant heterogeneity across reviews in outcome endpoints. The outcomes reported could be aligned within the five core areas of the taxonomy including tooth survival which was reported in nine reviews. Patient‐reported outcomes were generally limited and no review reported on Oral Health Related Quality of Life. Many of the reviews reporting on randomized control trials were at low risk of selective reporting bias whilst other study designs were at higher risk. Discussion Consistency in outcome reporting is necessary to realize the benefits of old but particularly novel therapies. Data from this review confirmed heterogeneity in reporting outcomes of revitalization and the need for development of a core outcome set (COS). Conclusions Several important outcomes including survival, root development, tooth discolouration and periapical healing have been identified in this review which could inform the development of a COS in this area. Registration Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database (registration no. 1879).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on revitalization: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…How to cite this article: Kirkevang, L-L, El Karim, I.A., Duncan, H.F., Nagendrababu, V. & Kruse, C. (2022) Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on non-surgical root canal treatment: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set. International Endodontic Journal, 55, 1128Journal, 55, -1164 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13812…”

Section: Author Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a standardized set is referred to as a core outcome set (COS), defined as a standardized collection of the minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported for a specific area of health (Clarke & Williamson, 2016 ). COS may increase the likelihood that important outcomes are measured, improve evidence synthesis by reducing heterogeneity between studies, and reduce outcome‐reporting bias to improve the validity of the study (Clarke, 2008 ; El Karim et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the field of endodontics, clinical studies have traditionally focused on clinician‐reported outcomes, which are measured by clinical and/or radiographic examination, whereas patient‐reported outcomes are less frequently employed (Duncan et al, 2021 ). Unfortunately, the lack of standardization between studies, for example in radiographic evaluation criteria, have limited the possible benefits from evidence synthesis in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (Cushley et al, 2019 ; Cushley et al, 2021 ; El Karim et al, 2022 ; Wu et al, 2009 ). As part of the process of establishing a COS for endodontic treatment, an identification and thorough review and analysis of previously employed measures and outcomes are needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Endodontics encounter different treatment modalities: non‐surgical root canal treatment, surgical endodontic treatment, vital pulp treatment, and regenerative endodontic therapy. Since the aims and outcomes of different treatment modalities vary, separate scoping reviews have to be performed for each treatment modality (El Karim et al, 2021 , 2022 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on non‐surgical root canal treatment: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Studies related to non-surgical root canal treatment are amongst the most frequently performed clinical studies in endodontics. However, heterogeneity in reporting outcomes and lack of standardization is a significant challenge to evidence synthesis and guideline development. Objectives:The aims of the present scoping review were to (a) identify outcomes reported in systematic reviews evaluating non-surgical root canal treatment; (b) identify how and when the reported outcomes were measured; (c) assess possible selective reporting bias in the included studies. The information obtained in this study should inform the development of a core outcome set (COS) for non-surgical root canal treatment.Methodology: Structured literature searches were performed to identify systematic reviews on non-surgical root canal treatments published in English between January 1990 and December 2020. Two reviewers undertook study selection and data extraction. Outcomes were categorized according to a healthcare taxonomy into five core areas (survival, clinical/physiological changes, life impact, resource use, and adverse events). The outcome measurement tools and length of follow-up were recorded. Results: Seventy-five systematic reviews were included, of which 40 included metaanalyses. Most reviews reported on physiological and clinical outcomes, primarily pain and/or radiographic assessment of periapical status, and a variety of measurement tools and scales were used. Few reviews focused on tooth survival, life impact, resources, and adverse events. The heterogeneity amongst the reviews was large on all parameters. Less than 40% of the reviews assessed the risk of selective reporting.Discussion: Overall aims of the included reviews were highly heterogenic; thus, outcomes and how they were measured also varied considerably. Patient-centred outcomes and the use of resources were rarely reported on.Conclusions: Most studies reported on physiological and clinical outcomes, in particular pain and/or radiographic healing. Measurement tools, scales, thresholds, and follow-up periods varied greatly within each outcome, making comparison across OUTCOMES IN NON-SURGICAL ROOT CANAL TREATMENT First author Year Country of corresponding author Journal name Aim /Research question Outcomes Metaanalysis (Y/N) Aminoshariae, A. 2020 USA Clinical Oral Investigations To evaluate the relationship between CVD and outcomes in endodontic treatment.

show abstract

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Development of a core outcome set for dry mouth: a consensus study

Niklander

Simms

Wiriyakijja

et al. 2023

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishing a Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatment modalities

Cited by 10 publications

References 21 publications

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on revitalization: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on revitalization: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on non‐surgical root canal treatment: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Development of a core outcome set for dry mouth: a consensus study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About