European Fissure Sealant Guidelines: assessment using <scp>AGREE II</scp>

Martin-Galindo, L San; Rodríguez‐Lozano, Francisco Javier; Ábalos-Labruzzi, Camilo; Niederman, Richard

doi:10.1111/idh.12174

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Continued efforts in evaluating sealant and caries prevalence in school‐aged children are necessary to monitor the attainment of oral health benchmarks set by Healthy People 2020 objectives . Standardization of school‐based programme outcomes would allow a more efficient means to observe children's oral health . Seal America's Preventive Intervention guidelines were created for administrators of sealant programmes as a strategy to standardize these outcomes .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of a school‐based dental sealant programme

Williams

Rogo

Gurenlian

et al. 2017

Int J Dental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of a school‐based dental sealant programme

Williams

Rogo

Gurenlian

et al. 2017

Int J Dental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As in the present analysis, they obtained good scores for domain 1 (scope and purpose) and very poor scores for domain 5 (applicability) [9]. San Martin-Galindo et al [10] used the AGREE II tool to evaluate three guidelines on the use of pit and fissure sealants for dental clinicians; scores for domain 6 (editorial independence) were lowest. In the present study, this domain score was the third lowest when the consensus guidelines were evaluated alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundConsensus guidelines are useful to improve clinical decision making. Therefore, the methodological evaluation of these guidelines is of paramount importance. Low quality information may guide to inadequate or harmful clinical decisions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of consensus guidelines published in implant dentistry using a validated methodological instrument.MethodsThe six implant dentistry journals with impact factors were scrutinised for consensus guidelines related to implant dentistry. Two assessors independently selected consensus guidelines, and four assessors independently evaluated their methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Disagreements in the selection and evaluation of guidelines were resolved by consensus. First, the consensus guidelines were analysed alone. Then, systematic reviews conducted to support the guidelines were included in the analysis. Non-parametric statistics for dependent variables (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was used to compare both groups.ResultsOf 258 initially retrieved articles, 27 consensus guidelines were selected. Median scores in four domains (applicability, rigour of development, stakeholder involvement, and editorial independence), expressed as percentages of maximum possible domain scores, were below 50% (median, 26%, 30.70%, 41.70%, and 41.70%, respectively). The consensus guidelines and consensus guidelines + systematic reviews data sets could be compared for 19 guidelines, and the results showed significant improvements in all domain scores (p < 0.05).ConclusionsMethodological improvement of consensus guidelines published in major implant dentistry journals is needed. The findings of the present study may help researchers to better develop consensus guidelines in implant dentistry, which will improve the quality and trust of information needed to make proper clinical decisions.

show abstract

“…In dentistry, the evaluation of guidelines using guideline assessment tools is in its infancy stage with only a few published articles. [17][18][19][20][21] Arieta-Miranda et al, 17 in their study on the quality of currently available international orthodontic guidelines, reported significant variations and sub-optimal quality level of CPGs. The quality assessment of CPGs in the management of paediatric dental emergencies applicable to the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted by Tejani et al, using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.…”

Section: Dentists and Other Healthcare Professionals Need To Use High...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…San Martin‐Galindo et al assessed the quality of European dental CPGs. The results revealed critical variations across CPG recommendations, and they suggested the development of high quality dental CPGs and to investigate their dissemination 21 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for traumatic dental injuries

Saikia

Patil

Muthu

et al. 2023

Dental Traumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Traumatic dental injuries (TDI) are considered a public health problem due to their high prevalence and associated physical, economic, psychological and social consequences. Hence, good Clinical Practice Guidelines are essential to achieving a favourable prognosis. The aim of this review was to appraise the existing Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) on TDI using AGREE II and AGREE-REX.

show abstract

European Fissure Sealant Guidelines: assessment using AGREE II

Abstract: Based on the AGREE II instrument, the results obtained show significant variation in the quality assessment of the three European Fissure Sealant Guidelines. Future studies should be carried out both to develop quality dental CPGs and to investigate effective ways of adopting them.

Cited by 7 publications

References 36 publications

An evaluation of a school‐based dental sealant programme

An evaluation of a school‐based dental sealant programme

Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for traumatic dental injuries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About