MyMedR

Displaying all 17 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

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
Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review

Jakovljevic A, Duncan HF, Nagendrababu V, Jacimovic J, Milasin J, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Oct;53(10):1374-1386.
PMID: 32648971 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13364

BACKGROUND: The existence of an association between cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and apical periodontitis (AP) remains unclear because results obtained from previous clinical studies and reviews are inconsistent or inconclusive.
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.
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.
Improving the quality of randomized trials in Endodontics

Duncan HF, Nagendrababu V, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):731-732.
PMID: 32396666 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13297
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.
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.
Comparison of two case difficulty assessment methods on cohorts of undergraduate dental students - a multi-centre study

Shah PK, Duncan HF, Abdullah D, Tomson PL, Murray G, Friend TM, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 Nov;53(11):1569-1580.
PMID: 32748456 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13377

AIM: To compare the educational benefits and user friendliness of two anonymized endodontic case difficulty assessment (CDA) methods.
METHODOLOGY: A cohort (n = 206) of fourth-year undergraduate dental students were recruited from four different Dental Schools and divided randomly into two groups (Group A and B). The participants assessed six test endodontic cases using anonymized versions of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE) case difficulty assessment form (AAE Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment Form and Guidelines, 2006) and EndoApp, a web-based CDA tool. Group A (n = 107) used the AAE form for assessment of the first three cases, followed by EndoApp for the latter. Group B (n = 99) used EndoApp for the initial three cases and switched to the AAE form for the remainder. Data were collected online and analysed to assess participants' knowledge reinforcement and agreement with the recommendation generated. Statistical analysis was performed using the two-way mixed model anova, Cohen's Kappa (κ) and independent t-tests, with the levels of significance set at P
PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: explanation and elaboration

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

Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):774-803.
PMID: 32266988 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13304

Well-designed and properly conducted randomized clinical trials provide a true estimate of the effects of interventions and are acknowledged as the gold standard in terms of clinical study design. However, the quality of randomized clinical trials published in the field of Endodontics is suboptimal. The Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for Endodontics by integrating and adapting the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, through an accepted and well-documented consensus process. Full implementation of the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines will minimize potential sources of bias and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication, which will ultimately improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials in Endodontics. The aim of this document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature in order to help authors understand their rationale and significance. A link to this PRIRATE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prirate/.
Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) guidelines: a development protocol

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

Int Endod J, 2020 Sep;53(9):1199-1203.
PMID: 32365401 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13318

Observational studies have a significant role in establishing the prevalence and incidence of diseases in populations, as well as determining the benefits and risks associated with health-related interventions. Observational studies principally encompass cohort, case-control, case series and cross-sectional designs. Inadequate reporting of observational studies is likely to have a negative impact on decision-making in day-to-day clinical practice; however, no reporting guidelines have been published for observational studies in Endodontics. The aim of this project is to develop reporting guidelines for authors when creating manuscripts describing observational studies in the field of Endodontology in an attempt to improve the quality of publications. The new guidelines for observational studies will be named: 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE)'. A steering committee was formed by the project leaders (PD, VN) to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The steering committee will review and adapt items from the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as identify new items that add value to Endodontics. The steering committee will create a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG), consisting of 30 members across the globe to review and refine the draft checklist items and flowchart. The items will be assessed by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PROBE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) made up of 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. After receiving feedback from the PFMG, the steering committee will pilot and finalize the guidelines. The approved PROBE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, and be presented at national and international conferences. The PROBE checklist and flowchart will be available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontics (PRIDE) website: www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org. The PROBE steering committee encourages clinicians, researchers, editors and peer reviewers to provide feedback on the PROBE guidelines to inform the steering group when the guidelines are updated.
Developing a consensus-based glossary of controversial terms in Endodontology

Ahmed HMA, Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Peters OA, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2023 Jul;56(7):788-791.
PMID: 37300405 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13918
Implications of root, pulp chamber, and canal anatomy on pulpotomy and revitalization procedures

Ahmed HMA, El-Karim I, Duncan HF, Krastl G, Galler K

Clin Oral Investig, 2023 Nov;27(11):6357-6369.
PMID: 37870593 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05284-9

OBJECTIVES: This review aims to discuss the implications of anatomy of the root, pulp chamber, and canals on pulpotomy and revitalization procedures (RPs) as treatment alternatives to root canal treatment procedures.
METHODS: This narrative review was undertaken to address two main questions - why remove vital pulp tissue in teeth with complex canal anatomy when it can be preserved? And why replace the necrotic pulp in teeth with mature roots with a synthetic material when we can revitalize? This review also aims to discuss anatomical challenges with pulpotomy and revitalization procedures.
RESULTS: Maintaining the vitality of the pulp via partial or full pulpotomy procedures avoids the multiple potential challenges faced by clinicians during root canal treatment. However, carrying out pulpotomy procedures requires a meticulous understanding of the pulp chamber anatomy, which varies from tooth to tooth. Literature shows an increased interest in the application of RPs in teeth with mature roots; however, to date, the relation between the complexity of the root canal system and outcomes of RPs in necrotic multi-rooted teeth with mature roots is unclear and requires further robust comparative research and long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Whenever indicated, pulpotomy procedures are viable treatment options for vital teeth with mature roots; however, comparative, adequately powered studies with long-term follow-up are needed as a priority in this area. RPs show promising outcomes for necrotic teeth with mature roots that warrant more evidence in different tooth types with long-term follow-ups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should be aware of the pulp chamber anatomy, which is subject to morphological changes by age or as a defensive mechanism against microbial irritation, before practicing partial and full pulpotomy procedures. RP is a promising treatment option for teeth with immature roots, but more evidence is needed for its applications in teeth with mature roots. A universal consensus and considerably more robust evidence are needed for the standardization of RPs in teeth with mature roots.
PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Tsesis I, Sathorn C, Pulikkotil SJ, Dharmarajan L, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Mar 19.
PMID: 30891775 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13118

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand-alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician-scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision-making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers, and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high-quality abstracts within Endodontology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
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.
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.
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 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

Filters

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

External Links