METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.
RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.
CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.
METHODOLOGY: Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item - 'Yes' - when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes' - when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No' - when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers.
RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ("Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?"), Item 8 ("Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?"), Item 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?") and Item 16 ("Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?") , whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ("Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?"). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorised as "Critically low", one review was "Low", two reviews were "Moderate" and one review was "High".
CONCLUSION: The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for Editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.
METHODOLOGY: A literature search was performed in Elsevier's Scopus database to locate all the publications of the International Endodontic Journal. Various bibliometric software packages including the open-source visualization software Gephi and Biblioshiny (version 2.0) were employed for data visualization and analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 3739 records with citation and bibliographic details were selected and retrieved to allow a bibliometric analysis to be performed. The bibliometric analysis indicates that the IEJ has grown both in terms of productivity and influence. Over time, the journal has been associated with an increase in the number of manuscripts published and the citations they have attracted, but with minor downward fluctuations in citations in the last few years. Bibliographic coupling of the IEJ articles revealed that the major research themes published in the journal include 'endodontics', 'root canal treatment', 'calcium hydroxide', 'apical periodontitis', 'mineral trioxide aggregate', 'microbiology', 'cyclic fatigue', 'cone-beam computed tomography' and 'micro-computed tomography'. Authors affiliated to institutions in the UK were the major contributors to the journal and were linked with other countries such as Brazil, USA and Malaysia. The largest number of publications were from the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
CONCLUSION: The IEJ is one of the leading journals in Endodontology and has been providing a platform for innovative research and clinical reports for more than 50 years. Publications have been associated with a wide range of authors, institutions and countries around the world.
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.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between CVDs and the prevalence of AP in adults.
METHODS: The protocol of the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020185753). The literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to May, 2020, with no language restrictions. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that evaluated the association between CVDs and AP were included. Other types of studies, including narrative reviews, were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed a literature search, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Any disagreements or doubts were resolved by a third reviewer. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 16 items. A final categorization of the systematic reviews classified each as of 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'critically low' quality.
RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included in the current review. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'moderate' quality, whereas one review was graded as 'critically low' quality.
DISCUSSION: Only one systematic review included a meta-analysis. Substantial heterogeneity amongst the primary studies included within each systematic review was notable in preventing a pooled analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: From the limited 'moderate' to 'critically low' quality evidence available, the current umbrella review concluded that a weak association exists between CVDs and AP. In the future, well-designed, longitudinal clinical studies with long-term follow-up are required.