Search

Knowledge Transfer Statement: The EU PRUDENT project aims to enhance the financing of oral health systems through novel evidence and implementation of better financing solutions together with citizens, patients, providers, and policy makers. The multicountry nature of the project offers unique windows of opportunity for rapid learning and improving within and across various contexts. PRUDENT is anticipated to strengthen capacities for better oral care financing in the EU and worldwide., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The present scoping review has the objective of providing an overview of meta-research in dentistry. A search of the PubMed database was performed for the period 11 October 2014 to 10 October 2019. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by one author; prior to this, a random sample of 10% of the retrieved titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors, achieving agreement of >80% on eligibility for initial inclusion, corresponding to good agreement. The following information was extracted from the full text of each article: meta-research area of interest; study design; type of studies evaluated in the meta-research; type of methodology used in assessment of the primary research; conflicts of interest reported; sponsorships reported; dental discipline; journal of publication; country of the first author; number of citations; and impact factor. A total of 7800 documents were initially retrieved. After analysis of the title/abstract and the full text of each article, and a snowballing procedure, 155 meta-research studies were identified and included. The 'methods' and 'reporting' meta-research areas were the most prevalent, with 73 (47%) and 61 (40%) studies, respectively. General dentistry, and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics were the dental specialties with the greatest number/proportion of included studies with 45 (29%) and 28 (18%) studies, respectively. These findings may help to prioritize future meta-research in dentistry, consequently avoiding unnessecary investigations, and increasing the value of oral and dental research., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Oral Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Scandinavian Division of the International Association for Dental Research.)

Associations between dental and chronic-systemic diseases were observed frequently in medical research, however the findings of this research have so far found little relevance in everyday clinical treatment. Major problems are the assessment of evidence for correlations between such diseases and how to integrate current medical knowledge into the intersectoral care of dentists and general practitioners. On the example of dental and chronic-systemic diseases, the Dent@Prevent project develops an interdisciplinary decision support system (DSS), which provides the specialists with information relevant for the treatment of such cases. To provide the physicians with relevant medical knowledge, a mixed-methods approach is developed to acquire the knowledge in an evidence-oriented way. This procedure includes a literature review, routine data analyses, focus groups of dentists and general practitioners as well as the identification and integration of applicable guidelines and Patient Reported Measures (PRMs) into the treatment process. The developed mixed methods approach for an evidence-oriented knowledge acquisition indicates to be applicable and supportable for interdisciplinary projects. It can raise the systematic quality of the knowledge-acquisition process and can be applicable for an evidence-based system development. Further research is necessary to assess the impact on patient care and to evaluate possible applicability in other interdisciplinary areas.

Objectives: To evaluate the risk of bias (ROB) in reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of animal experiments published in implant dentistry, and to explore the association between animal experiment characteristics and ROB., Material and Methods: We searched the MEDLINE (via PubMed), SCOPUS and SciELO databases from 2010 to March 2015 for reports of RCTs of animal experiments published in implant dentistry. We evaluated independently and in duplicate the ROB of these experiments by the use of a tool specifically developed to evaluate ROB in animal studies, the SYRCLE's tool. ROB was judged as low, high or unclear (when there was not enough information to judge ROB). We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to evaluate the association of specific study characteristics and extent of ROB., Results: We initially selected 850 publications and 161 reports of animal experiments were included. For a total of 1449 entries (records), 486 (34%) were rated as low ROB. High ROB was attributed to 80 (6%) of entries, and 883 (60%) entries were rated as unclear ROB. The characteristics "impact factor" (IF), reporting of standard error (SE) and reporting of confidence interval (CI) were significantly associated with low ROB in some SYRCLE domains., Conclusions: A substantial number of items with unclear ROB were observed in this sample of animal experiments in implant dentistry. Furthermore, the present findings suggest that implant dentistry animal experiments published in journals with higher IF and better report of measures of precision; that is, CI and SE may have lower ROB than those not having these characteristics., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: This second article of a series of four is aimed to inform dental practitioners about the relevance to provide more formal analysis of economic resources when helping patients make clinical decisions., Methods: The following methods of health economic evaluation are described: Cost-effectiveness-analysis (CEA), cost-utility-analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit-analysis (CBA). CEA compares the effectiveness of different interventions usually based on specific clinical outcome measures, for example pocket depth reduction. CUA evaluates the effectiveness of therapies by taking into account more generic health outcome measures such as quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) is based on measuring patients' actual willingness to pay. Cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) is based on measuring patients' actual willingness to pay, and it offers a method of economic evaluation that values all benefits against all costs. In other words, the total costs of a specific intervention are subtracted from the value of benefits related to that intervention., Results: This article reported common methods of health economic evaluation that could be taken into account throughout clinical decision-making. Decision makers (patients, practitioners, health policy) should be adequately informed about costs and health outcomes associated with the various therapeutic alternatives in order to act responsibly within scenarios of resource scarcity. Economic evaluations can be informative with respect to whether or not the health outcomes outweigh the costs of an intervention, and hence provide a decision-making tool for decision makers considering treatment alternatives., Conclusions: The information provided here may help decision makers (patients, practitioners, health policy) to understand economic considerations as an essential component of the decision-making process. Carefulness is advised with regard to interpreting the results from economic evaluation studies., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies are important for improving estimates of the effects of treatment and for guiding future clinical studies on humans. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies in dentistry through using a validated checklist. A literature search was conducted independently and in duplicate in the PubMed and LILACS databases. References in selected systematic reviews were assessed to identify other studies not captured by the electronic searches. The methodological quality of studies was assessed independently and in duplicate by using the AMSTAR checklist; the quality was scored as low, moderate, or high. The reviewers were calibrated before the assessment and agreement between them was assessed using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Of 444 studies retrieved, 54 systematic reviews were selected after full-text assessment. Agreement between the reviewers was regarded as excellent. Only two studies were scored as high quality; 17 and 35 studies were scored as medium and low quality, respectively. There is room for improvement of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry. Checklists, such as AMSTAR, can guide researchers in planning and executing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For determining the need for additional investigations in animals and in order to provide good data for potential application in human, such reviews should be based on animal experiments performed according to sound methodological principles., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Academic detailing (AD) is a defined form of educational outreach that can be deployed to intrinsically motivate practitioners towards improving quality of care. This paper describes the design of the ADVOCATE Field Studies. This proof of concept study aims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and usefulness of AD, reinforced with feedback information to promote prevention-oriented, patient-centred and evidence-based oral healthcare delivery by general dental practitioners (GDPs). Methods: Six groups of GDPs will be recruited; two groups of six to eight GDPs in each of three countries - the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. GDPs will meet for four Academic Detailing Group (ADG) meetings for open discussions using comparative feedback data to stimulate debate about their dental practice performance and care delivery. Group meetings will be moderated using the AD methodology. Qualitative data will be collected through focus group interviews, an online discussion forum, field notes and debriefs of ADG meetings and analysed by conventional content analysis using MaxQDA software. Discussion: The results of the study will provide novel information on the feasibility, perceived acceptability and usefulness of AD and feedback data for GDPs to improve oral healthcare delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the burden of oral health inequalities in the society. It discusses the impact of oral health inequalities on socially disadvantaged members of society. It outlines the social determinants of oral health inequalities and the limitations of the preventive schemes. It calls on the local, national and international organizations to take action on how to reduce oral health inequalities.