Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry

Abstract

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.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID‐COSM) international consensus report

“…Consolidation of these efforts into a systematic evidence base supporting the development of robust clinical practice guidelines in implant dentistry (Faggion et al, 2017), however, has been hampered by difficulties in synthesizing research data in analyses. This is mainly due to the lack of consistently reported outcomes, which results in the inability to perform meaningful meta‐analyses in most of the published systematic reviews.…”

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID‐COSM) international consensus report

“…Consolidation of these efforts into a systematic evidence base supporting the development of robust clinical practice guidelines This manuscript was simultaneously and jointly published in Clinical Oral Implants Research and the Journal of Clinical Periodontology in implant dentistry (Faggion et al, 2017), however, has been hampered by difficulties in synthesizing research data in analyses. This is mainly due to the lack of consistently reported outcomes, which results in the inability to perform meaningful meta-analyses in most of the published systematic reviews.…”

Demographic Evaluation of Implant Locations Among 1000 Adult Patients in Turkey

“…There are several studies in the literature on dental implant treatments (4)(5)(6)(7)(8). These studies were primarily on the assessment of osteointegation (9,10), bone loss (11,12) and survival (13)(14)(15).…”