Andrea Seiffert1, Carlos Zaror2,3, Claudia Atala-Acevedo4, Andrea Ormeño5, María José Martínez-Zapata6,7, Pablo Alonso-Coello6,7. 1. Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile. 2. Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Manuel Montt #112, Temuco, Chile. carlos.zaror@ufrontera.cl. 3. Centre for Research in Epidemiology, Economics and Oral Public Health (CIEESPO), Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile. carlos.zaror@ufrontera.cl. 4. Centre for Research in Epidemiology, Economics and Oral Public Health (CIEESPO), Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile. 5. Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. 6. Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB-Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain. 7. CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for dental caries prevention in children and adolescents MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of CPGs on caries preventive measures between 2005 and 2016. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, TripDatabase, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health. We included CPGs with recommendations on sealants, fluorides and oral hygiene. Three reviewers independently assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardised scores for the six domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. Also, we calculated the overall agreement among calibrated reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Twenty-two CPGs published were selected from a total of 637 references. Thirteen were in English and nine in Spanish. The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.90; 95%CI 0.89-0.92). The mean score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 89.6 ± 12%; Stakeholder involvement 55.0 ± 15.6%; Rigour of development 64.9 ± 21.2%; Clarity of presentation 84.8 ± 14.1%; Applicability 30.6 ± 31.5% and Editorial independence 59.3 ± 25.5%. Thirteen CPGs (59.1%) were assessed as "recommended", eight (36.4%) "recommended with modifications" and one (4.5%) "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of CPGs in caries prevention was moderate. The domains with greater deficiencies were Applicability, Stakeholder involvement and Editorial independence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should use the best available CPGs in dental caries prevention to provide optimal oral health care to patients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for dental caries prevention in children and adolescents MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of CPGs on caries preventive measures between 2005 and 2016. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, TripDatabase, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health. We included CPGs with recommendations on sealants, fluorides and oral hygiene. Three reviewers independently assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardised scores for the six domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. Also, we calculated the overall agreement among calibrated reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Twenty-two CPGs published were selected from a total of 637 references. Thirteen were in English and nine in Spanish. The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.90; 95%CI 0.89-0.92). The mean score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 89.6 ± 12%; Stakeholder involvement 55.0 ± 15.6%; Rigour of development 64.9 ± 21.2%; Clarity of presentation 84.8 ± 14.1%; Applicability 30.6 ± 31.5% and Editorial independence 59.3 ± 25.5%. Thirteen CPGs (59.1%) were assessed as "recommended", eight (36.4%) "recommended with modifications" and one (4.5%) "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of CPGs in caries prevention was moderate. The domains with greater deficiencies were Applicability, Stakeholder involvement and Editorial independence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should use the best available CPGs in dental caries prevention to provide optimal oral health care to patients.
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Pablo Alonso-Coello; Affan Irfan; Ivan Solà; Ignasi Gich; Mario Delgado-Noguera; David Rigau; Sera Tort; Xavier Bonfill; Jako Burgers; Holger Schunemann Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-12
Authors: Paulina Fuentes Padilla; Gabriel Martínez; Robin W M Vernooij; Xavier Bonfill Cosp; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Phil McEwan; Jason Gordon; Marc Evans; Thomas Ward; Hayley Bennett; Klas Bergenheim Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 2.583