MyMedR

Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 49 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

What is of interest in Endodontology? A bibliometric review of research published in the International Endodontic Journal and the Journal of Endodontics from 1980 to 2019

Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Nagendrababu V, Azevedo B, Dummer PMH, Neelakantan P

Int Endod J, 2020 Jan;53(1):36-52.
PMID: 31454086 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13210

AIM: To report the most common terminology used in titles of scientific papers published in the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ) and Journal of Endodontics (JOE) between 1980 and 2019 and to identify the most-cited papers in these journals.
METHODOLOGY: The Web of Science database was searched to retrieve all the manuscripts published in the IEJ and JOE between 1980 and 2019. The articles were analysed using the VOS viewer software and the terms within the titles extracted. The top-10 terms were categorized according to the number of occurrences and the decade of publication. Maps were created using the text data for each decade of publication. Classic papers were identified when the number of citations was >400. During the same period of time, highly cited studies were identified including the authors, institutions and countries associated with these papers.
RESULTS: Terms such as canal, molar and periapical lesion were the most commonly used in titles between 1980 and 1999. The terms instruments, expression, case report and cell were the most often terms used between 2000 and 2019. During the last 10 years, an increase in the number of reviews and papers on cone beam computed tomography occurred. The organizations with the largest number of citations in each decade were University of São Paulo, University College London, Loma Linda University and United States Army. The country with the largest number of citations and greatest number of top 10 and top 100 manuscripts was the United States. A paper had to be associated with more than 167 citations to be included in the top-100 most-cited list; at least 14 papers met the criteria to be categorized as a citation classic (>400 citations).
CONCLUSION: While many diverse areas of endodontics have been explored in the last 40 years within the IEJ and JOE, only a relatively few topics are highly cited and can be considered as classics.
Glossary for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Nagendrababu V, Dilokthornsakul P, Jinatongthai P, Veettil SK, Pulikkotil SJ, Duncan HF, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 Feb;53(2):232-249.
PMID: 31520403 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13217

A systematic review aims to answer a focussed research question through a structured review of the evidence, using a predefined methodology, which often includes a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine the effect estimates from the individual studies included in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are positioned at the highest level in the hierarchy of clinical evidence. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was introduced in 2009 to help authors improve the quality and reliability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Recently, the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of Endodontology has increased; however, the quality of the published manuscripts has been reported to be sub-optimal, which does not take account of the systematic reviews that were rejected because of more obvious deficiencies. The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of terminology commonly used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in an attempt to provide easily understood definitions and explanations to assist authors when reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to allow those wishing to read them to become better informed.
Is articaine more effective than lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis? An umbrella review

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Whitworth J, Nekoofar MH, Pulikkotil SJ, Veettil SK, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 Feb;53(2):200-213.
PMID: 31491042 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13215

BACKGROUND: Pain management can be challenging during root canal treatment of teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
AIM: To identify whether articaine or lidocaine is the most appropriate local anaesthetic solution for teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment.
DATA SOURCE: The protocol of this umbrella review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019137624). PubMed, EBSCHO host and Scopus databases were searched until June 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Systematic reviews published in English comparing the effectiveness of local anaesthesia following administration of articaine or lidocaine in patients undergoing root canal treatment of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis were included. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and carried out the data extraction and the appraisal of the included reviews. Disagreements were resolved in consultation with a third reviewer.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of the included reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers using the AMSTAR tool (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). Each of the 11 AMSTAR items was given a score of 1 if the specific criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear.
RESULTS: Five systematic reviews with meta-analyses were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 8 to 11, out of a maximum score of 11, and all reviews were categorized as 'high' quality. Two reviews scored 0 for item 8 in AMSTAR because the scientific quality of the clinical trials included in these reviews was not used in the formulation of the conclusions.
LIMITATIONS: Systematic reviews published only in the English language were included. Only a small number of studies were available to assess pain intensity during the injection phase, the time until the onset of anaesthesia and the occurrence of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Articaine is more effective than lidocaine for local anaesthesia of teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment. There is limited evidence that injection of articaine is less painful, has more rapid onset and has fewer adverse events compared with lidocaine.
Guidelines for reporting the quality of clinical case reports in Endodontics: a development protocol

Nagendrababu V, Chong BS, McCabe P, Shah PK, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Jun;52(6):775-778.
PMID: 30586165 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13067

Case reports are used to communicate interesting, new or rare condition/s, innovative treatment approaches or novel techniques. Apart from informing readers, such information has the potential to contribute towards further scientific studies and the development of newer management modalities. In that context, it is important that case reports are presented accurately and deliver all the necessary and pertinent information to the reader. Reporting guidelines are used to inform authors of the quality standards required to ensure their manuscripts are accurate, complete and transparent. The aim of this project is to develop and disseminate new guidelines - Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE). The primary aim is to aid authors when constructing case reports in the field of Endodontics to ensure the highest possible reporting standards are adopted. The project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee comprising six additional members. Subsequently, a five-phase consensus process will be used. The steering committee will develop the PRICE guidelines (PRICE checklist and flow chart) by identifying relevant items (quality standards) derived from the CAse REport guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles, focussing on the content of case reports. Following this, the steering committee will identify a PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members including academicians, practitioners, and members of the public. The individual items (components) of the PRICE checklist will be evaluated by the PDG based on a 9-point Likert scale. Only items scored between 7 and 9 by 70% or more members will be included in the draft checklist. The Delphi process will be continued until a consensus is reached and a final set of items agreed by the PDG members. Following this, a PRICE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) will be formed with 20 members to achieve a final consensus. The final consensus-based checklist and flow chart will be evaluated and approved by selected members of the PDG and PFMG. The approved PRICE guidelines will be published in relevant journals and disseminated via contacts in academic institutions and national endodontic societies, as well as being presented at scientific/clinical meetings.
Animal testing: a re-evaluation of what it means to Endodontology

Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Kishen A, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JAP, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2019 Sep;52(9):1253-1254.
PMID: 31407362 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13137
Improving the design, execution, reporting and clinical translation of laboratory-based studies in Endodontology

Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Aug;52(8):1089.
PMID: 31297848 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13122
Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) guidelines: a development protocol

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Priya E, Pulikkotil SJ, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Jul;52(7):974-978.
PMID: 30702139 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13087

Randomized clinical trials are acknowledged as the most appropriate methodology for demonstrating the efficacy or effectiveness of one intervention as opposed to another and thus play a major role in clinical decision-making. However, it is recognized that despite the existence of various guidelines, for example, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, the quality of manuscripts describing randomized trials is often suboptimal. The current project aims to develop and disseminate new guidelines, Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE), to improve the planning and reporting quality of randomized trials in the field of Endodontics. The project leads (VN, PD) designed a robust process to develop the PRIRATE guidelines. At first, a steering committee of eight members, including the project leads, was formed. Thereafter, a five-stage consensus process will be followed: initial steps, pre-meeting activities, face-to-face consensus meeting, post-meeting activities and post-publication activities. The steering committee will develop the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines by identifying relevant and important items from various sources including the CONSORT guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. This will be followed by the establishment of a PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members. The individual items of the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines developed by the steering committee will be evaluated and scored on a 9-point Likert scale by the PDG members. Items with a score of seven and above by more than 70% of PDG members will be included in the second draft of the guidelines, and the Delphi process will be repeated until each item fulfils the set conditions. After obtaining consensus from the PDG, the PRIRATE guidelines will be discussed by 20 selected individuals within a PRIRATE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG) to arrive at a final consensus. The final PRIRATE guidelines will be accompanied with an explanation and elaboration document developed by the steering committee and approved by six members, three from the PDG and three from the PFCMG. The PRIRATE guidelines will be published in journals and actively disseminated to educational institutions, national and international academic societies and presented at scientific meetings. The steering committee will periodically revise and update the PRIRATE guidelines based on feedback from stakeholders.
Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology: a development protocol

Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Murray PE, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JAP, Priya E, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Sep;52(9):1290-1296.
PMID: 30985938 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13125

The regulated use of animals in endodontic research is often necessary to investigate the biological mechanisms of endodontic diseases and to measure the preclinical efficacy, biocompatibility, toxicology and safety of new treatments, biomaterials, sealers, drugs, disinfectants, irrigants, devices and instruments. Animal testing is most crucial in situations when research on humans is not ethical, practical or has unknown health risks. Currently, there is a wide variability in the quality of manuscripts that report the results of animal studies. Towards the goal of improving the quality of publications, guidelines for preventing disability, pain, and suffering to animals, and enhanced reporting requirements for animal research have been developed. These guidelines are referred to as Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Henceforth, causing any form of animal suffering for research purposes is not acceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The present report describes a protocol for the development of welfare and reporting guidelines for animal studies conducted in the specialty of Endodontology: the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) guidelines. The PRIASE guidelines will be developed by adapting and modifying the ARRIVE guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The development of the new PRIASE guidelines will include a five-step consensus process. An initial draft of the PRIASE guidelines will be developed by a steering committee. Each item in the draft guidelines will then be evaluated by members of a PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) for its clarity using a dichotomous scale (yes or no) and suitability for its inclusion using a 9-point Likert scale. The online surveys will continue until each item achieves this standard, and a set of items are agreed for further analysis by a PRIASE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG). Following the consensus meeting, the steering committee will finalize and confirm the PRIASE guidelines taking into account the responses and comments of the PFCMG. The PRIASE guidelines will be published and disseminated internationally and updated periodically based on feedback from stakeholders.
PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: a consensus-based development

Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Murray PE, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JAP, Priya E, et al.

Int Endod J, 2021 Jun;54(6):848-857.
PMID: 33450080 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13477

Animal testing is crucial in situations when research on humans is not allowed because of unknown health risks and ethical concerns. The current project aims to develop reporting guidelines exclusively for animal studies in Endodontology, using an established consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named: Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021. Nine individuals (PD, VN, AK, PM, MN, JF, EP, JJ and SJ), including the project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee. The steering committee developed a novel checklist by adapting and integrating their animal testing and peer review experience with the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and also the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) were also formed. Thirty-one PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that were used to formulate the PRIASE guidelines. The novel PRIASE 2021 guidelines were discussed with the POMG on 9 September 2020 via a Zoom online video call attended by 21 individuals from across the globe and seven steering committee members. Following the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript involving research on animals. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are a checklist consisting of 11 domains and 43 individual items together with a flowchart. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are focused on improving the methodological principles, reproducibility and quality of animal studies in order to enhance their reliability as well as repeatability to estimate the effects of endodontic treatments and usefulness for guiding future clinical studies on humans.
PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration

Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Murray PE, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JAP, Priya E, et al.

Int Endod J, 2021 Jun;54(6):858-886.
PMID: 33492704 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13481

Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus-based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).
Comparing the anaesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks for teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Nagendrababu V, Abbott PV, Pulikkotil SJ, Veettil SK, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2021 Mar;54(3):331-342.
PMID: 33040335 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13428

BACKGROUND: The scientific literature is contradictory in relation to selecting the appropriate volume of local anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) when attempting to anaesthetize mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs when treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases until May 2020. Randomized clinical trials published in English, comparing 1.8 with 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs in permanent mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis, were included. The risk of bias of the included trials was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The effect of random errors on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: Four clinical trials involving 280 teeth from patients with ages ranging from 18 to 65 years were included. Among the four trials, three were categorized as having a 'low' risk of bias and one was categorized as having 'some concerns'. The primary meta-analysis revealed that 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution when administered for IANBs was associated with significantly greater success rates compared with 1.8 mL (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07, 3.52; I2 = 77%). Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (restricting trials only to those that used the Heft-Parker visual analogue pain scale) revealed that the use of 3.6 mL significantly increased the success of IANBs compared with 1.8 mL. The trial sequential analysis confirmed the evidence for the beneficial effect of 3.6 mL to achieve success for IANBs was 'conclusive'. The quality of evidence was graded as 'high'.
CONCLUSION: Increasing the volume of anaesthetic solution from 1.8 to 3.6 mL improved the success rate for IANBs in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. The quality of the evidence was 'high'. Future high-quality clinical trials are required with different types of anaesthetic solutions and other types of teeth.
Glossary for randomized clinical trials

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Pulikkotil SJ, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2021 Mar;54(3):354-365.
PMID: 33089501 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13434

Randomized clinical trials are positioned at the highest level of primary clinical evidence, as they are designed to be unbiased with a reduced risk of systematic error. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first developed in 1996 to improve the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials with updates being published subsequently. Recently, the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for the field of Endodontics to address the suboptimal quality of randomized clinical trials submitted to Endodontic journals, which result in many being rejected. A principal flaw in submissions is the fact that many authors are unclear on the keys terms that should be used when developing manuscripts for publication. Clearly, authors should be aware of the most common terms used when conducting and reporting randomized clinical trials. Hence, the aim of the current paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of the terminology used in randomized clinical trials in order to assist authors when designing, executing and writing-up randomized clinical trials.
PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration

Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.

Int Endod J, 2021 Sep;54(9):1491-1515.
PMID: 33982298 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13565

Guidance to authors is needed to prevent their waste of talent, time and resources in writing manuscripts that will never be published in the highest-quality journals. Laboratory studies are probably the most common type of endodontic research projects because they make up the majority of manuscripts submitted for publication. Unfortunately, most of these manuscripts fail the peer-review process, primarily due to critical flaws in the reporting of the methods and results. Here, in order to guide authors, the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team developed new reporting guidelines for laboratory-based studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines. The PRILE 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the area of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. The process of developing the PRILE 2021 guidelines followed the recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. The aim of the current document is to provide authors with an explanation for each of the items in the PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature, and to provide advice from peer-reviewers and editors about how to solve each problem in manuscripts prior to their peer-review. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/) provides a link to the PRILE 2021 explanation and elaboration document as well as to the checklist and flowchart.
PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: A consensus-based development

Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.

Int Endod J, 2021 Sep;54(9):1482-1490.
PMID: 33938010 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13542

Reproducible, skilfully conducted and unbiased laboratory studies provide new knowledge, which can inform clinical research and eventually translate into better patient care. To help researchers improve the quality and reproducibility of their research prior to a publication peer-review, this paper describes the process that was followed during the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines and which used a well-documented consensus-based methodology. A steering committee was created with eight individuals (PM, RO, OP, IR, JS, EP, JJ and SP), plus the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee prepared an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the modified Consolidated Statement of Reporting Trials checklist for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles as well as adding several new items. The steering committee then formed a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRILE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to provide expert advice and feedback on the initial draft checklist and flowchart. The members of the PDG participated in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the items within the PRILE 2021 checklist and the accompanying flowchart for clarity and suitability. The PRILE checklist and flowchart developed by the online Delphi process were discussed further by the POMG. This online meeting was conducted on 12 February 2021 via the Zoom platform. Following this meeting, the steering committee developed a final version of the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart, which was piloted by several authors when writing up a laboratory study for publication. Authors are encouraged to use the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart to improve the clarity, completeness and quality of reports describing laboratory studies in Endodontology. The PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart are freely available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/).
Effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning in Endodontic education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nagendrababu V, Pulikkotil SJ, Sultan OS, Jayaraman J, Soh JA, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2019 Feb;52(2):181-192.
PMID: 30099740 DOI: 10.1111/iej.12995

The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) in the field of Endodontics to improve educational outcomes compared to traditional learning methods. Randomized controlled studies published in English were identified from two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) up to May 2018. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessed the risk of bias (ROB). Any teaching method using TEL was considered as the intervention, and this was compared to traditional methods. The outcome measuring the effectiveness of learning activities was evaluated by Kirkpatrick's four-level training evaluation model. The four levels of training outcomes are as follows: Reaction, Learning, Behaviour and Results. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) by the random effects model. In total, 13 studies were included in the systematic review. Only three studies were assessed as 'low' ROB. A meta-analysis could not be performed in the domains of Reaction and Behaviour. No significant difference was observed in knowledge gain (Learning domain) between TEL and traditional methods (SMD, 0.14 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.39) I2 = 62.7%). Similarly, no difference was observed in performance (Behaviour domain). A variable response was found in attitude (Reaction domain). From the available evidence, it can be concluded that TEL is equally as effective as traditional learning methods.
Association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment in adults: an umbrella review

Nagendrababu V, Segura-Egea JJ, Fouad AF, Pulikkotil SJ, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Apr;53(4):455-466.
PMID: 31721243 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13253

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic disorder amongst dental patients. The association between the diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment is unclear.
AIM: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment.
DATA SOURCE: The protocol of the review was developed and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019141684). Four electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCHOhost, Cochrane and Scopus databases) were used to perform a literature search until July 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses published in English assessing any outcomes of root canal treatment comparing diabetic and nondiabetic patients were included. Two reviewers were involved independently in study selection, data extraction and appraising the reviews that were included. Disagreements were resolved with the help of a third reviewer.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 11 items. Each AMSTAR item was given a score of 1 if the criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear.
RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 5 to 7, out of a maximum score of 11, and all the systematic reviews were classified as 'medium' quality.
LIMITATIONS: Only two systematic reviews included a meta-analysis. Only systematic reviews published in English were included.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Diabetes mellitus is associated with the outcome of root canal treatment and can be considered as a preoperative prognostic factor.
PRICE 2020 guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: a consensus-based development

Nagendrababu V, Chong BS, McCabe P, Shah PK, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 May;53(5):619-626.
PMID: 32090342 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13285

Case reports can provide early information about new, unusual or rare disease(s), newer treatment strategies, improved therapeutic benefits and adverse effects of interventions or medications. This paper describes the process that led to the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines through a consensus-based methodology. A steering committee was formed with eight members (PD, VN, BC, PM, PS, EP, JJ and SP), including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and modifying the items from the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRICE Face-to-Face Meeting Group (PFMG) were then formed. The members of the PDG were invited to participate in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the wording and utility of the checklist items and the accompanying flow chart that was created to complement the PRICE 2020 guidelines. The revised PRICE checklist and flow chart developed by the online Delphi process was discussed by the PFMG at a meeting held during the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial Congress in Vienna, Austria, in September 2019. Following the meeting, the steering committee created a final version of the guidelines, which were piloted by several authors during the writing of a case report. In order to help improve the clarity, completeness and quality of case reports in Endodontics, we encourage authors to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines.
A protocol for developing reporting guidelines for laboratory studies in Endodontology

Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Aug;52(8):1090-1095.
PMID: 30908638 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13123

Laboratory-based research studies are the most common form of research endeavour and make up the majority of manuscripts that are submitted for publication in the field of Endodontology. The scientific information derived from laboratory studies can be used to design a wide range of subsequent studies and clinical trials and may have translational potential to benefit clinical practice. Unfortunately, the majority of laboratory-based articles submitted for publication fail the peer-review step, because unacceptable flaws or substantial limitations are identified. Even when apparently well-conducted laboratory-based articles are peer-reviewed, they can often require substantial corrections prior to the publication. It is apparent that some authors and reviewers may lack the training and experience to have developed a systematic approach to evaluate the quality of laboratory studies. Occasionally, even accepted manuscripts contain limitations that may compromise interpretation of data. To help authors avoid manuscript rejection and correction pitfalls, and to aid editors/reviewers to evaluate manuscripts systematically, the purpose of this project is to establish and publish quality guidelines for authors to report laboratory studies in the field of Endodontology so that the highest standards are achieved. The new guidelines will be named-'Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology' (PRILE). A steering committee was assembled by the project leads to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The committee will identify new items as well as review and adapt items from existing guidelines. The items forming the draft guidelines will be reviewed and refined by a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG). The items will be evaluated by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PRILE face-to-face consensus meeting group (PFCMG) formed by 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. This will be subject to final approval by the steering committee. The approved PRILE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, presented at congresses/meetings, and be freely available on a dedicated website. Feedback and comments will be solicited from researchers, editors and peer reviewers, who are invited to contact the steering committee with comments to help them update the guidelines periodically.
PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: a consensus-based development

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):764-773.
PMID: 32196696 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13294

In evidence-based health care, randomized clinical trials provide the most accurate and reliable information on the effectiveness of an intervention. This project aimed to develop reporting guidelines, exclusively for randomized clinical trials in the dental specialty of Endodontology, using a well-documented, validated consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020. A total of eight individuals (PD, VN, HD, LB, TK, JJ, EP and SP), including the project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee. The committee developed a checklist based on the items in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIRATE Face-to-Face Meeting group (PFMG) were also formed. Thirty PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that make up the PRIRATE guidelines. The guidelines were discussed at a meeting of the PFMG at the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial congress, held on 13 September 2019 in Vienna, Austria. A total of 21 individuals from across the globe and four steering committee members (PD, VN, HD and LB) attended the meeting. As a consequence of the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript. The PRIRATE 2020 guidelines contain a checklist consisting of 11 sections and 58 individual items as well as a flowchart, considered essential for authors to include when writing manuscripts for randomized clinical trials in Endodontics.
Research that matters: systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Apr;53(4):437-439.
PMID: 32170984 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13272

Filters

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links