Methodological quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in cariology.

Objective: The present study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in the cariology field. Materials and methods: A systematic search on electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, DARE and Epistemonikos), websites, and guideline organizations were undertaken. Evidence-based CPGs including at least one recommendation for clinical prevention and/or management of dental caries, developed for any clinical setting, were included. The quality of each guideline was evaluated using the AGREE II tool. Descriptive analysis was performed and the average overall score for each domain was calculated. Results: Thirty-two guidelines were included. Most of the CPGs achieved higher scores for the domains of clarity of presentation (66.7%, 95% IC 37.3–52.2) and scope and purpose (59.6%, 95% IC 53.7–65.5) domains; and lower scores for editorial independence (46.1%, 95% IC 37.8–55.7) and applicability domain (44.7%, 95% IC 37–55.3). The reviewers assessed 12 CPGs (37.5%) as recommended for use, 15 (46.9%) recommended with modifications, and 5 (15.6%) as not recommended. Conclusion: The overall methodological quality of evidence-based CPGs in the cariology field is moderate, and there is a need for improvements in reporting related to most domains. The poorest reporting was found in the description of the domains’ applicability of its recommendations and editorial independence. Clinical relevance: Clinical Practice Guidelines provide guidance to patients, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders. The quality of these documents is essential for establishing trust in their recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]