MyMedR

Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 49 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

Application of a new system for classifying root canal morphology in undergraduate teaching and clinical practice: a national survey in Malaysia

Ahmed HMA, Che Ab Aziz ZA, Azami NH, Farook MS, Khan AA, Mohd Noor NS, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):871-879.
PMID: 32003029 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13271

AIM: To evaluate and compare the feedback of final year undergraduate dental students in eight Malaysian dental schools on the application of a new system for classifying root canal morphology in teaching and clinical practice.
METHODS: One PowerPoint presentation describing two classification systems for root canal morphology (Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology, 1974 38, 456 and its supplemental configurations, International Endodontic Journal 2017, 50, 761) was delivered to final year undergraduate dental students in eight dental schools in Malaysia by two presenters (each presented to four schools). To examine students' feedback on the utility of each system, printed questionnaires consisting of six questions (five multiple choice questions and one open-ended question) were distributed and collected after the lecture. The questionnaire was designed to compare the classification systems in terms of accuracy, practicability, understanding of root canal morphology and recommendation for use in pre-clinical and clinical courses. The exact test was used for statistical analysis, with the level of significance set at 0.05 (P = 0.05).
RESULTS: A total of 382 (out of 447) students participated giving a response rate of 86%. More than 90% of students reported that the new system was more accurate and more practical compared with the Vertucci system (P 0.05). The students' responses for all questions were almost similar for both presenters (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The new system of International Endodontic Journal 2017, 50, 761 for classifying root and canal morphology was favoured by final year undergraduate dental students in Malaysia. The new system has the potential to be included in the undergraduate endodontic curriculum for teaching courses related to root and canal morphology.
Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE): guiding authors to identify and correct reporting deficiencies in their manuscripts prior to peer review

Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Chong BS, Priya E, Duncan HF, Rôças IN, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 May;53(5):589-590.
PMID: 32277771 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13276
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/).
PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in endodontics: Explanation and elaboration

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Fouad AF, Kirkevang LL, Parashos P, Pigg M, et al.

Int Endod J, 2023 Feb 27.
PMID: 36851874 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13909

Observational studies play a critical role in evaluating the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations as well as in defining the benefits and potential hazards of health-related interventions. There are currently no reporting guidelines for observational studies in the field of Endodontics. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team has developed and published new reporting guidelines for observational-based studies called the 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023' guidelines. The PROBE 2023 guidelines were developed exclusively for the speciality of Endodontics by integrating and adapting the 'STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)' checklist and the 'Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP)' principles. The recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines were adhered to throughout the process of developing the guidelines. The purpose of this document is to serve as a guide for authors by providing an explanation for each of the items in the PROBE 2023 checklist along with relevant examples from the literature. The document also offers advice to authors on how they can address each item in their manuscript before submission to a journal. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely accessible and downloadable from the PRIDE website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).
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/).
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.
Fulltext Citation Classics on Dental Caries: A Systematic Review

Arshad AI, Ahmad P, Dummer PMH, Alam MK, Asif JA, Mahmood Z, et al.

Eur J Dent, 2020 Feb;14(1):128-143.
PMID: 32189321 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1703419

OBJECTIVE: A systematic search was performed for the identification and analysis of the 100 most often cited articles on dental caries and to highlight the changing trends in the field of dentistry over time.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was performed without any restriction on the study design, publication year, or language using the Web of Science (WoS) group of Clarivate Analytics enabling the search through "All Databases." Based on the citation count as available in WoS, the articles were sorted in a descending manner. Information regarding each article was then extracted, which included its authorship, counts of citation (in other databases), citation density, current citation index (2019), publication year, country of publication, journal of article, evidence level based on study design, and keywords description.
RESULTS: The count of citation for each article varied in each database, that is, 175 to 2,003 in WoS, 89 to 1,981 in Scopus, and 126 to 3,492 when searched in Google Scholar. The highest number of articles (n = 10) related to dental caries were published in 2004. A total of 301 authors made valuable contributions to this field, out of which J.D. Featherstone had coauthored 6 articles. A significant negative correlation (p < 0.01) was found between the age of the article and the citation density (r =-0.545). However, a nonsignificant correlation (p = 0.952) occurred between the age of publication and the citation count (r = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review provide a critical appraisal of the context underpinning scientific developments in the field of dental caries and also highlighted trends in clinical management and research.
Methodological quality assessment criteria for the evaluation of laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within the specialty of Endodontology: A development protocol

Nagendrababu V, Abbott PV, Boutsioukis C, Duncan HF, Faggion CM, Kishen A, et al.

Int Endod J, 2022 Jan 18.
PMID: 35043398 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13682

High-quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well-structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be applied objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately defined, unreliably applied, inadequately analysed, unreasonably biased, defective, and non-repeatable. The aim of the present paper is to outline the process to be followed in the development of comprehensive methodological quality assessment criteria to be used when evaluating laboratory studies, that is research not conducted in vivo on humans or animals, included in systematic reviews within Endodontology. The development of new methodological quality assessment criteria for appraising the laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within Endodontology will follow a three-stage process. First, a steering committee will be formed by the project leaders to develop a preliminary list of assessment criteria by modifying and adapting those already available, but with the addition of several new items relevant for Endodontology. The initial draft assessment criteria will be reviewed and refined by a Delphi Group (n = 40) for their relevance and inclusion using a nine-point Likert scale. Second, the agreed items will then be discussed in an online or face-to-face meeting by a group of experts (n = 10) to further refine the assessment criteria. Third, based on the feedback received from the online/face-to-face meeting, the steering committee will revise the quality assessment criteria and subsequently a group of authors will be selected to pilot the new system. Based on the feedback collected, the criteria may be revised further before being approved by the steering committee. The assessment criteria will be published in relevant journals, presented at national and international congresses/meetings, and will be freely available on a dedicated website. The steering committee will update the assessment criteria periodically based on feedback received from end-users.
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.
Application of a new system for classifying tooth, root and canal morphology in the primary dentition

Ahmed HMA, Musale PK, El Shahawy OI, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Jan;53(1):27-35.
PMID: 31390075 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13199

Knowledge of root and canal morphology is essential for the effective practice of root canal treatment. Paediatric endodontics aims to preserve fully functional primary teeth in the dental arch; however, pulpectomy procedures in bizarre and tortuous canals encased in roots programmed for physiologic resorption are unique challenges. A new coding system for classifying the roots and main canals (https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12685), accessory canals (https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12800) and developmental anomalies (https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12867) has been introduced recently. This paper discusses challenges for describing root and canal morphology in primary teeth and describes the potential application of the new classification system for root canals in the primary dentition.
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.

Filters

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

External Links