MyMedR

Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 36 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Dental age estimation in southern Chinese population using panoramic radiographs: validation of three population specific reference datasets

Jayaraman J, Roberts GJ, Wong HM, King NM

BMC Med Imaging, 2018 04 27;18(1):5.
PMID: 29703180 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-018-0250-z

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of estimated age should depend on the reference data sets (RDS) from which the maturity scores or Ages of Attainment (AoA) were obtained. This study aimed to test the accuracy of age estimation from three different population specific dental reference datasets (RDS).
METHODS: Two hundred and sixty six dental panoramic radiographs of subjects belonging to southern Chinese ethnicity were scored and dental age (DA) was estimated from three reference datasets: French-Canadian, United Kingdom (UK) Caucasian and southern Chinese. Statistical significance was set at p 0.05). The southern Chinese RDS estimated the age of 80% of subjects within ±12 months range, and 90% of subjects within ±18 months range (p
Fulltext Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID): an expert consensus-based statement

Jayaraman J, Dhar V, Donly KJ, Priya E, Raggio DP, Childers NK, et al.

BMC Oral Health, 2021 07 23;21(1):369.
PMID: 34301229 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01698-7

BACKGROUND: Reporting guidelines for different study designs are currently available to report studies with accuracy and transparency. There is a need to develop supplementary guideline items that are specific to areas within Pediatric Dentistry. This study aims to develop Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID) guidelines using a pre-defined expert consensus-based Delphi process.
METHODS: The development of the RAPID guidelines was based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, the Executive Group identified ten themes in Pediatric Dentistry and compiled a draft checklist of items under each theme. The themes were categorized as: General, Oral Medicine, Pathology and Radiology, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Sedation and Hospital Dentistry, Behavior Guidance, Dental Caries, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Pulp Therapy, Traumatology, and Interceptive Orthodontics. A RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) was formed comprising of 69 members from 15 countries across six continents. Items were scored using a 9-point rating Likert scale. Items achieving a score of seven and above, marked by at least 70% of RDG members were accepted into the RAPID checklist items. Weighted mean scores were calculated for each item. Statistical significance was set at p
Fulltext Does arch length preservation in mixed dentition children affect mandibular second permanent molar eruption? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Arunachalam S, Sivakumar I, Jayaraman J, Sharan J

BMC Oral Health, 2021 08 11;21(1):395.
PMID: 34380483 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01755-1

BACKGROUND: Arch length preservation strategies utilize leeway space or E-space in the mixed dentition to resolve mild to moderate mandibular incisor crowding. The purpose of this systematic review of the literature was to analyze the effects of arch length preservation strategies in on mandibular second permanent molar eruption.
METHODS: A search for relevant articles published from inception until May 2020 was performed using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google scholar and journal databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adopted for the conduct of the systematic review. Using RevMan 5.3 software, the most pertinent data were extracted and pooled for quantitative analysis with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was analyzed by using Cochran Q test and I squared statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 5 studies involving 855 mixed dentition patients with arch length preservation therapy were included in the qualitative analysis. Pooled estimate of the data from two studies revealed 3.14 times higher odds of developing mandibular second molar eruption difficulty due to arch length preservation strategies using lingual holding arch (95% CI; OR 1.10-8.92). There was no heterogeneity found in the analysis. The certainty levels were graded as very low.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that arch length preservation strategies pose a risk for development of mandibular second molar eruption disturbances, but the evidence was of very low quality. Registration number: CRD42019116643.
Dental development in children with supernumerary teeth in the anterior region of maxilla

Mallineni SK, Jayaraman J, Wong HM, King NM

Clin Oral Investig, 2019 Jul;23(7):2987-2994.
PMID: 30374829 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2709-2

OBJECTIVE: Development of human dentition has been used as a predictor for evaluating the growth and maturity of an individual. It is fairly identical in a specific population, but the effect of development on subjects with dental anomalies had not been fully explored, particularly on subjects with supernumerary teeth (ST). This study hence aims to evaluate the dental development of children with and without ST.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sample size calculation was conducted and 320 radiographs of subjects with and without supernumerary teeth (ST) were obtained from the archives of a teaching hospital. The subjects in both groups were age and sex matched. All the subjects belong to southern Chinese ethnicity aged 2 to 14 years. The left-side dentition was scored, and dental age (DA) was estimated by obtaining scores from the southern Chinese dental reference dataset. Paired t test was used to calculate the difference between chronological age and dental age (CA-DA) for boys and girls with and without ST and further based on the number and position of ST.
RESULTS: The difference between chronological age and dental age (CA-DA) was 0.10 years for boys and 0.19 years for girls with ST whilst 0.01 and 0.05 years for boys and girls without ST (p > 0.05). The boys with bilateral ST showed significant delay in dental development of 0.23 years (p
Effectiveness of ultrasonically activated irrigation on root canal disinfection: a systematic review of in vitro studies

Nagendrababu V, Jayaraman J, Suresh A, Kalyanasundaram S, Neelakantan P

Clin Oral Investig, 2018 Mar;22(2):655-670.
PMID: 29372445 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2345-x

OBJECTIVES: Reduction of microbial load from the root canal systems is a pre-requisite for healing of lesions of endodontic origin. Such microbial reduction is influenced by the method of irrigant delivery and activation. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effect of ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) with other irrigation techniques on the reduction of microorganisms during root canal disinfection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research question was created based on the PICO strategy. Two reviewers independently performed a comprehensive literature search in electronic databases. Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria to the selected articles, a systematic data extraction sheet was constructed. The selected articles were assessed using methodological quality scoring protocol. The risk of bias in selected studies was critically assessed by two reviewers.
RESULTS: A total of 15 articles were included for the systematic review. The included studies were heterogeneous in study design; hence, meta-analysis was not performed. The overall risk of bias for the selected studies was moderate. Overall, UAI showed superior reduction of microbial counts, resulting in better disinfection compared to other irrigation systems chosen for comparison in this review.
CONCLUSION: The use of UAI can bring about superior microbial reduction within the root canal system compared to other irrigant activation techniques.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Activation of irrigants with ultrasonic brings about significant bacterial reduction from the root canal systems compared to other methods of irrigant activation and conventional syringe irrigation. This might help in improving the outcome of root canal treatment.
Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals

Pulikkotil SJ, Jayaraman J, Nagendrababu V

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent, 2019 Oct;20(5):383-391.
PMID: 30887462 DOI: 10.1007/s40368-019-00432-w

AIM: To systematically evaluate the reporting quality of the abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to December 2017. Selection of studies by title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment was independently done by two reviewers. The quality of abstracts was assessed by PRISMA-Abstract checklist comprising of 12 items; one each for title and objective, three items for methods, three items for results, two items for discussion and two items for others. PRISMA-A median scores were calculated and compared with the article characteristics. Statistical significance was set at p
Does hypodontia of primary canines result in delayed dental development?

Jayaraman J, Mallineni SK

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent, 2017 10;18(5):371-372.
PMID: 28887776 DOI: 10.1007/s40368-017-0303-y
Comparison of dental maturation in Hong Kong Chinese and United Kingdom Caucasian populations

Jayaraman J, Roberts GJ

Forensic Sci Int, 2018 Nov;292:61-70.
PMID: 30269046 DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.09.005

Understanding dental maturation in ethnically distinct populations is important in forensic age estimations and the presence of population differences in dental maturation was highly debated. No such comparison had been performed between two major populations; Caucasian and Chinese. This study aims to analyze and compare the maturation of permanent teeth from a sample of Caucasian and Chinese populations. Dental panoramic radiographs of subjects aged 2-24years belonging to United Kingdom (UK) Caucasian and Hong Kong (HK) Chinese populations were obtained from a teaching hospital. The teeth were scored and reference datasets were developed separately for males and females. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05 and independent sample t-test was conducted between the average ages at assessment for each stage of development for all the teeth in both groups. The HK Chinese were dentally advanced than the UK Caucasians by an average of 5 months, however, reverse trend was observed in third molars (p<0.05). These findings must be considered whilst utilising population specific reference dataset for dental age estimation.
Demirjian's method is unsuitable for dental age estimation

Jayaraman J, Roberts G

Forensic Sci Med Pathol, 2016 12;12(4):532-533.
PMID: 27669714
Fulltext A method of estimating age of undocumented children and young adults of different socioeconomic status in Cambodia

Kar May L, Mei Shian AY, Durward C, Jayaraman J

Heliyon, 2020 Feb;6(2):e03476.
PMID: 32140592 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03476

A growing number of Cambodian children without legal documentary evidence of date of birth are vulnerable to exploitation. This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of southern Chinese reference dataset for dental age estimation on Cambodian children and young adults of different socioeconomic status. Dental panoramic tomographs (DPT) of 371 Cambodian children and young adults belonging to lower and higher socioeconomic status (SES) groups were analyzed. All the left maxillary and mandibular permanent teeth including the third molars were scored based on Demirjian's classification of tooth development stages. Chronological age (CA) was calculated from the date of birth and date of exposure of radiograph. The mean age of attainment for each stage of development was obtained from the southern Chinese reference dataset. Dental age (DA) was calculated by averaging the mean age scores for all the teeth. Paired t-test and correlation analysis were conducted to measure associations between the chronological age and the dental age for males and females in the lower and higher socio-economic status groups. Underestimation of age was observed in both SES groups using the southern Chinese reference dataset. For the higher SES group, the difference between the chronological and dental age (CA-DA) was 0.26 years for females and 0.11 years for males. The difference was statistically significant only in females (p < 0.05). In the low SES group, the results showed a difference of 0.07 years in females and 0.01 years in males; the differences were not statistically significant in both sexes (p > 0.05). A strong correlation was observed between the CA and DA in both sex and SES groups ranging from 0.969 to 0.988 (p < 0.05). The southern Chinese dental reference dataset can be used to estimate the age of undocumented Cambodian male and female children and young adults of both higher and lower SES.
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.
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/).
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.
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.

Filters

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

External Links