Effects and cost-effectiveness of postoperative oral analgesics for additional postoperative pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment: Health technology assessment including a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is an uncertainty regarding how to optimally prevent and/or reduce pain after dental treatment on children and adolescents. AIM: To conduct a systematic review (SR) and health technology assessment (HTA) of oral analgesics administered after dental treatment to prevent postoperative pain in children and adolescents aged 3-19 years.
DESIGN: A PICO-protocol was constructed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017075589). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Cinahl, and EMBASE, November 2018. The researchers (reading in pairs) assessed identified studies independently, according to the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, following the PRISMA-statement.
RESULTS: 3,963 scientific papers were identified, whereof 216 read in full text. None met the inclusion criteria, leading to an empty SR. Ethical issues were identified related to the recognized knowledge gap in terms of challenges to conduct studies that are well-designed from methodological as well as ethical perspectives.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no scientific support for the use or rejection of oral analgesics administered after dental treatment in order to prevent or reduce postoperative pain in children and adolescents. Thus, no guidelines can be formulated on this issue based solely on scientific evidence. Well-designed studies on how to prevent pain from developing after dental treatment in children and adolescents is urgently needed.

Introduction

Many patients associate dental treatment with pain. There are several reasons for this, and depending on the underlying diagnosis and type of treatment, the risk of pain is realistic and should be tackled. This is especially important in children and adolescents, as they may be more vulnerable to pain owing to their level of cognitive reasoning and understanding [1]. Painful medical/dental episodes, along with minor everyday pain experiences such as bumps, falls etc., are also likely to play a significant role in shaping the individual’s pain perception in future medical and/or dental events [2]. Furthermore, painful dental treatment experiences have been identified as essential components in the development of dental fear and anxiety [3, 4], which affects approximately 9% of the paediatric population [3]. Therefore, preventing and reducing pain are major responsibilities for the dental team.

Apart from using local anaesthetics, administration of oral analgesics might be one way to prevent dental treatment pain and probably even more so during the postoperative period: after tooth extractions, for example. However, there is an uncertainty regarding the use of oral analgesics in paediatric dentistry [5] and a need for more general strategies. Before constructing guidelines for this purpose, the effects and cost-effectiveness of oral analgesics as well as the ethical aspects of the intervention should be scientifically evaluated, implying a need for a health technology assessment (HTA) as well as a systematic review (SR) [6, 7].

A recent systematic review of preoperative administration of oral analgesics could not determine whether this administration is of any benefit for children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment under local anaesthetic [8]. There is, so far, no available systematic review of postoperative administration of oral analgesics in conjunction with dental treatment in children. PROSPERO (available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) has no information on published or ongoing review registered on this topic other than the present study.

This HTA and SR aimed to assess the effects, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of oral analgesics given immediately after dental treatment in order to prevent and/or reduce postoperative pain in children and adolescents aged 3–19 years. The review also sought to assess the ethical aspects of the intervention.

Materials and methods

Inclusion criteria

The following research questions were addressed:

Which is the most effective (most pain-reducing as measured by a pain rating scale) oral analgesics, administered after dental treatment, in order to prevent or alleviate postoperative pain after dental treatment in children and adolescents aged 3–19 years?

Is any pharmacological substance superior regarding preventing/alleviating pain? Is a single-dose sufficient or does a several dosage regimen have better effect?

Are there any side effects or adverse reactions reported when oral analgesics are administered immediately after dental treatment in children and adolescents aged 3–19 years?

Are oral analgesics given after dental treatment considered cost-effective in children and adolescents aged 3–19 years?

A PICO model was constructed (participants, interventions, control, and outcome):

Participants

Children and adolescents aged 3–19 years

Interventions

Administration of oral analgesics after dental treatment

Pharmacological substances: prescription-free/over-the-counter oral analgesics containing paracetamol (acetaminophen), ibuprofen, diclofenac or naproxen

Administration of drug: oral administration as a single dose or multiple doses following an administration regimen

Dental treatments: primary or permanent teeth treated by filling therapy, pulp therapy/capping, tooth extraction, minor oral surgery

Control

Postoperative administration of other oral analgesics or placebo after same dental treatment

Pharmacological substances: other prescription-free/over-the-counter oral analgesics containing paracetamol (acetaminophen), ibuprofen, diclofenac, or naproxen, or placebo or no control

Administration of drug: oral administration as a single dose or multiple doses following an administration regimen

Dental treatments: primary or permanent teeth treated by filling therapy, pulp therapy/capping, tooth extraction, minor oral surgery

Outcome measures

Pain after dental treatment assessed by the child patient using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) [9], Faces Pain Scale–Revised [10], Wong-Baker FACES® [11], Numerical Rating Scale [12], Eland Color Scale [13], or other facial scales

Adverse effects, side effects

Costs, cost-effectiveness

Types of studies

Randomized control trials (RCT), systematic reviews (not narrative), observational studies, studies using qualitative methods

Participants 20 years or older; studies where data could not be extracted for 3–19-year-olds

Disability or medical conditions leading to cognitive impairment or neuropsychiatric diagnosis

Oral analgesics other than paracetamol (acetaminophen), ibuprofen, diclofenac, or naproxen, or routes of administration other than per os

Treatment under hypnosis, sedation, or general anaesthesia

Pain assessment by proxy

Languages other than English, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian

Literature search strategy

The protocol for this systematic review (SR) and health technology assessment (HTA) was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017075589), September 1, 2017, available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017075589.

Studies were identified using PubMed via NML, Cochrane via Wiley, Scopus via Elsevier, CINAHL via EBSCO and Embase via Elsevier. The literature searches were conducted in November 2017 and updated on November 20–23, 2018. Search strategies are presented in S1 File. Limitations were set to randomized control studies, systematic reviews (not narrative), observational studies, studies using qualitative methods, and publication year 1980 or later. There were no language restrictions. The literature search was done together with librarians specialized in informatics at the Malmö University library. Table 1 presents the number of articles identified via each database. After duplication control and removing articles published earlier than 1980, a total of 3,963 studies were finally evaluated according to the framework of the PRISMA-statement [14]. The number of abstracts retrieved, included and excluded articles, and the stage of exclusion are shown in a flowchart (Fig 1). No search for grey literature was performed.

Table 1

Results from each database search.

Database	Date	Number of articles
PubMed via NLM	20th November	1216
Cochrane via Wiley	20th November	1760
Scopus via Elsevier	21st November	1972
CINAHL via EBSCO	23rd November	469
Embase via Elsevier	23rd November	2586
Total		8003
Duplicate articles or published before 1980		4040
Number of articles evaluated according to PRISMA-statement		3963

Number of articles identified via each database after updated search November 2018.

Fig 1

Flow diagram showing the literature review process.

All abstracts were screened independently by the review authors reading in pairs, according to the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. If at least one reviewer considered an abstract relevant, the paper was included and read in full text.

Data extraction and quality assessment

The review authors, using the same pairs as when screening abstracts, assessed the relevance of the included full-text papers. The articles were assessed independently, and any differences were handled with discussion to arrive at a consensus within each review pair. Excluded full-text papers are shown in S2 File. The following steps were also planned for risk of bias assessment, data extraction, and grading of quality.

For assessment of relevance and risk of bias: the standardized checklist from Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), which is similar to the Cochrane checklist (http://www.cochrane.org/) but has additional items [15, 16].

For grading quality of evidence for studies with low or moderate risk of bias: the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system [17].

For assessment of systematic reviews: A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) [18].

Results

Literature search

The combined search from the five different databases resulted in 3,963 papers, of which 3,747 studies were excluded after reading titles and abstracts. The remaining 216 studies were retrieved and read in full text. No study was found to meet the criteria for inclusion (see Fig 1). Thus, no quality assessment or further analyses of the effects or cost-effectiveness of postoperative oral analgesics were made. S2 File, shows full references and reasons for exclusion of the 216 studies. Common reasons for exclusion were: no data for 3–19-year-olds, other pharmacologic substances (e.g. narcotic analgesics, agents not available over-the-counter), or patients treated under general anaesthesia or under sedation (e.g. benzodiazepine or nitrous oxide/oxygen sedation).

Complications and side effects

Complications and side effects were evaluated during all stages of data extraction: i.e. also based on abstracts for papers that were not read in full text. There were no serious side effects or adverse effects reported in the retrieved full-text papers or in any of the assessed abstracts.

Ethics

The present systematic review was unable to identify and include studies for quality assessment, and thus ethical aspects were considered on a general level, based on the framework by Heintz et al. [7]. The main ethical issues concerns the theme effects on health and the item knowledge gap (if there is insufficient scientific evidence for an intervention, are there any ethical or methodological issues for further research?) and the theme compatibility with ethical norms and the item autonomy (are the patients able to consent to the intervention?) [7]. Compliance with ethical standards was not evaluated in any of the identified studies, but some general thoughts can still be pinpointed. Explicit protections to safeguard children’s rights and welfare are always necessary in medical and dental treatment, as they are in all research involving young individuals [19]. A knowledge gap as identified in the present study, signals a need for more studies. However, before including children in research on the effect of oral analgesics, well-designed studies in adults should be identified and scrutinized. The present study did not investigate this. Still, the perspective of children should be acknowledged, and children and adolescents must not be excluded from research that can be beneficial for them.

Discussion

This health technology assessment (HTA) and systematic review (SR) was performed to assess the effects, adverse or side effects, and cost-effectiveness of oral analgesics administered to children and adolescents after dental treatment to prevent postoperative pain. This is an intervention commonly used in clinical paediatric dentistry that has previously not been systematically evaluated. As no studies meeting the inclusion criteria could be identified, it was not possible to find scientific support for the effects of postoperatively administered oral analgesics for the prevention or reduction of pain after dental treatment in children and adolescents. Thus, this remains a knowledge gap. Based on the identified studies this HTA and SR could not identify any severe adverse events or side effects of over-the-counter oral analgesics. However, as the published literature does not provide support for the use or rejection of postoperative administration of oral analgesics in dental care for children and adolescents, it is not possible to formulate clinical guidelines on this issue solely based on scientific evidence.

In order to provide a basis for guidelines and to bridge research with decision-making, this SR was expanded to also be an HTA [6, 20, 21]. HTA includes evaluation of both ethical aspects and health economics and is an important tool when reviewing scientific evidence in order to appraise how the value of scientifically based knowledge can be implemented in health care systems and society more broadly [6, 20].

As no studies were found, we do not know the effects or the cost-effectiveness of oral analgesics given immediately after dental treatment in children and adolescents aged 3–19 years. However, decisions on this issue are continuously being made every time a child or adolescent undergoes dental treatment, so in the absence of evidence, it is important to consider other types of knowledge [22]. It is therefore important to consider the most realistic consequences of the different alternatives. The direct cost of oral analgesics is considered low, so the cost-effectiveness of the methods depends heavily on the effect side. In this situation, the decision to use oral analgesics, as well as the type of substance and whether to use a single dose or multiple dose regimen, should primarily depend on the clinical effects (including side effects) and not their cost-effectiveness. However, if it is proven that oral analgesics do not provide any additional effect, they should not be considered cost-effective. In future studies of treatment of dental pain in the child and adolescent population, it would be of value also to estimate their cost-effectiveness in order to guide decision makers in their prioritization process.

Regarding ethical aspects, the first choice should be to answer research questions by performing clinical trials in adults. However, it may be unethical to not involve children in research studies evaluating drugs. If children were excluded from all drug research, medication used in children would be limited to extrapolation from adult studies or even exclude children from the possibility of receiving existing and new drugs that they could benefit from. Thus, the research community has a significant responsibility to design, approve, and conduct high-quality studies in children so that they can have access to important medications and receive optimal therapies [23].

The present SR did not identify any studies to be included and can therefore be considered an empty review. The definition of empty review is “having no eligible studies retrieved or located by the review authors” [24]. Different reasons for an empty review have been proposed. One is that a subject/research area might be new and therefore not researched. Another is that the topic is very specific and no studies can to be found. A third reason is the use of overly stringent inclusion criteria [25]. In addition, publication bias, i.e. more publications of studies with positive findings compared to studies with no or negative results, could contribute to empty reviews [26, 27].

Possible limitations of this SR could be that the outcome measure (pain after dental treatment assessed by the child patient) was too narrow. However, patient-reported and patient-centred outcomes are essential in clinical research and based on the definition of pain being a subjective experience, the used outcome measure is highly relevant [28, 29]. This is in accordance with the COMET Handbook [30], which also states the importance of outcome measurement being appropriate and central for the key participants, including patients. Notably, no studies were excluded because of this inclusion criterion.

The definition of the population could also be discussed, as a limitation of this SR. As the review aimed to look at children and adolescents the age group, 3 to 19 years of age, was chosen in order to find as many publications as possible and to ensure that the whole teenage period was included. The literature search identified a considerable number of papers; 3,963 records of which 216 were read in full text. The majority of the excluded publications (S2) did not provide data for children or adolescents (i.e. the population intended for this review). Based on this, it is not likely that the inclusion criteria were too stringent. Instead, the problem comes down to the fact there are too few studies on postoperative pain management in children and adolescents. This is in accordance with the findings in the Cochrane review on pre-emptive administration of oral analgesics in young patients aged up to 17 years that identified 1,691 records and was able to include only two studies in a quantitative synthesis [8].

Empty systematic reviews are important to report as they highlight research gaps and indicate the state of research evidence at a particular point in time [19]; they may also serve as a guide for researchers and/or funders towards novel areas and future original research that needs to be undertaken [25, 31]. There is also a risk of publication bias affecting decision-making in health care if not publishing empty systematic reviews. This problem is acknowledged by the WMA Declaration of Helsinki that raises the ethical obligation for researchers, authors, and editors etc. to publish and disseminate negative and inconclusive as well as positive results or research [32].

Within the field of paediatric dentistry, Mejàre et al. [33] identified and mapped a large number of knowledge gaps and concluded that there was an urgent need for good-quality primary clinical research in most clinically relevant domains. One domain pointed out was the “use of analgesics for the delivery of dental care” [33]. Also, the SBU database (Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services), serving as a repository for the UK Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments (DUETs) [34] has identified a need for a systematic review on postoperative pain relief for oral procedures in children and adolescents. The present SR meets this need [35] and thereby contributes to assembling the puzzle of research strategies related to pain reduction in conjunction with dental treatment in children and adolescents.

This HTA and SR points to a significant problem in that pharmacological substances are used in clinical practice without having been scrutinized. Also, the weighting of possible effects and side effects of the drugs or the intervention is lacking. Therefore, it is important to disseminate and discuss the results. Mainly two pharmacological substances, paracetamol (acetaminophen) and ibuprofen, have been suggested for treatment of pain resulting from dental treatment [5, 8]. Paracetamol is considered a very safe drug and is used for the treatment of pain and fever. However, there is a risk of toxicity from overdose or from underlying patient conditions that might be affected by the drug: for instance, dehydration, malnutrition, or concomitant use of other medications [36]. It is known that NSAIDs can precipitate asthma in sensitive individuals, although this is uncommon (less than 10%). Individuals sensitive to NSAIDs are often also sensitive to other unrelated COX inhibitors: for example, paracetamol [37]. This association between paracetamol and asthma is still under debate, since the evidence is inconclusive [38]. Ibuprofen, an NSAID, is also considered a safe pharmacological substance, and alongside paracetamol it is recommended as an antipyretic and analgesic from an early age [38]. However, there have been reported side effects in children from the use of ibuprofen, even though a clear association between ibuprofen and, for example, asthma or Reye’s syndrome, has not been established [39, 40]. This calls for caution and highlights the importance of using only recommended standard doses of oral analgesics, based on weight and age [34]. Based on this knowledge, an empty systematic review is even more important. The lack of scientific evidence makes it impossible to construct any guidelines on the general administration of oral analgesics to prevent postoperative pain. Instead, all administration must be individually tailored and founded on a risk assessment that considers the type of dental treatment, the patient’s medical status, previous pain experiences, and the patient’s subjective point of views.

Conclusions

As no studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified, it was not possible to find any scientific support for the effects, nor provide any support for rejection, of postoperatively administered oral analgesics for the prevention or reduction of pain after dental treatment in children and adolescents. Thus, it is not possible to formulate clinical guidelines on this issue solely based on scientific evidence. There is an urgent need for further well-designed studies on how to prevent pain after dental treatment. This empty systematic review serves as an important starting point for research in this area.

PRISMA 2009 checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Search strategies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Characteristics of excluded studies.

List of excluded full text papers.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

23 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-18628

Effects and cost-effectiveness of postoperative oral analgesics for additional postoperative pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment: Health technology assessment including a systematic review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Berlin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 30 days. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Federico Bilotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This study was supported by research funds from Oral Health Related Research by Region Skåne (Odontologisk Forskning i Region Skåne, OFRS 569491), Sweden".

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to

publish, or preparation of the manuscript".

3. Please include a copy of Table 1 which you refer to in your text on page 6.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The preparation of Systematic review was erroneous.

Several lacunae were noted and authors should discuss with someone who has prepared SRs before, especially those who have worked with the Cochrane Collaboration.

Outcomes are not well defined and the PICO statement is incorrectly prepared.

Professional help should have been taken for preparation of Search Strategies.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-19-18628

Title: Effects and cost-effectiveness of postoperative oral analgesics for additional postoperative pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment: Health technology assessment including a systematic review

Submitted to:

PLOS ONE

1. ABSTRACT.

- Abstract appropriately summarize the manuscript.

- There aren´t discrepancies between the Abstract and the remainder of the manuscript.

- The Abstract can be understood without reading the manuscript.

2. BACKGROUND/AIM

- The Introduction is concise.

- The purpose of the study is well defined.

- The authors provide a rationale for performing the study based on a review of the medical literature with an appropriate length.

- This manuscript is Original Research, with a well-defined hypothesis.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

- Please, add a PRISMA statement checklist.

- Please, add an AMSTAR checklist.

4. RESULTS

- The results are clearly explained.

- The results are reasonable and expected.

- There aren´t results introduced that are not preceded by an appropriate discussion in the Methods section.

5. DISCUSSION

- The discussion is concise.

- Their research question was answered.

- Please, define Limitations of the study.

- Authors’ conclusions are justified by the results found in the study.

6. FIGURES

- Figure is appropriate and it is appropriately labeled.

- Adequately show the important results.

7. TABLES (Supl)

- Appropriately describe the results.

8. REFERENCES

- The reference list follows the format for the journal.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rafael Badenes

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Badenes Review PLOS ONE 3.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Sep 2019

Reviewers' and editor's comments has been responded to in the document "Response to Reviewers", that has been attached to present re-submission.

We have considered the Journal Requirements and comments and critique from the reviewers. We have made changes accordingly, but also have following comments:

JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Authors’ comments]: We have updated the file names according to the links above, and adjusted the manuscript to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This study was supported by research funds from Oral Health Related Research by Region Skåne (Odontologisk Forskning i Region Skåne, OFRS 569491), Sweden". We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript".

[Authors’ comments]: The funding information is removed from the manuscript. For the Funding section, we would like to update the text with the following:

“This study was supported by research funds from Oral Health Related Research by Region Skåne (Odontologisk Forskning i Region Skåne, OFRS 569491), Sweden.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

3. Please include a copy of Table 1 which you refer to in your text on page 6.

[Authors’ comments]: Table 1 is now included in present re-submission.

REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

[Authors’ comments]: The manuscript has been prepared according to common principles for systematic reviews (SR) and health technology assessments (HTA). We have followed the guidelines for SRs, from SBU (Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services) (Line 393-397, page 16). SBU is in the same network as Cochrane Sweden, which is a part of the Cochrane global community. This SR also follows the PRISMA-statement (Line 158-159, page 6)

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

[Authors’ comments]: Since this SR came out empty, no statistical analysis could be performed. This question is to our understanding therefore not applicable.

Reviewer #2: N/A

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

[Authors’ comments]: Reviewer #1 has not given any thorough review on what is missing. We therefore find it difficult to revise the manuscript, without this detailed information.

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

[Authors’ comments]: Language editing was undertaken before submitting the manuscript. This was done by an English speaking professional English Language Consultant with long experience in scientific language.

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

• The preparation of Systematic Review was erroneous. Several lacunae were noted and authors should discuss with someone who has prepared SRs before, especially those who have worked with the Cochrane Collaboration.

[Authors’ comments]: This systematic review has been performed according to the guidelines from the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), which is a Swedish governmental agency focusing on assessing and evaluating methods in use in healthcare and social services. It is one of the world’s oldest HTA agencies, collaborating with Cochrane Sweden. We have referred to this in the manuscript (Line 175-178, side 7-8; ref #16 (Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU). Assessment of methods in health care—A handbook. Stockholm. 2018. Available: https://www.sbu.se/contentassets/76adf07e270c48efaf67e3b560b7c59c/eng_metodboken.pdf)). The PRISMA-statement has been followed as well (Line 159, side 6; ref #14 (Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. PMID: 19621072)).

• Outcomes are not well defined and the PICO statement is incorrectly prepared.

[Authors’ comments]: We believe that the PICO is formulated correctly. We have defined the Population (Line 104, page 4), Interventions (Line 108, page 4 and Line 109-114, page 5), Control (line 116-124, page 5), and Outcome Measures (line 126-130, page 5). The SR has also been registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).

• Professional help should have been taken for preparation of Search Strategies.

[Authors’ comments]: This has been made (line 155-156, page 6). Two librarians specialized in informatics performed the search in all five databases, used in this SR.

Reviewer #2 (only the bullet points requiring revision):

• Please, add a PRISMA statement checklist.

[Authors’ comments]: PRISMA checklist was added in the first submission. We have however added it again with the current re-submission.

• Please, add an AMSTAR checklist.

[Authors’ comments]: This is added with the current re-submission.

• Please, define Limitations of the study.

[Authors’ comments]: Limitations of our study are mentioned, see Line 268-286, page 11-12. However we have inserted a phrase in the beginning of Line 268, page 11, and at the end of the first sentence on line 275, page 11, to make it clearer that limitations are discussed. “Possible limitations of this SR could be that the outcome measure (pain after dental treatment assessed by the child patient) was too narrow.”, and “The definition of the population could also be discussed, as a limitation of this SR.”

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Dec 2019

Effects and cost-effectiveness of postoperative oral analgesics for additional postoperative pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment: Health technology assessment including a systematic review

PONE-D-19-18628R1

Dear Dr. Berlin,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Federico Bilotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

PONE-D-19-18628R1

In this SR, the Authors conducted a systematic review (SR) and health technology assessment (HTA) of oral analgesics administered after dental treatment to prevent postoperative pain in children and adolescents aged 3-19 years.

A PICO-protocol was constructed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017075589). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Cinahl, and EMBASE, November 2018. The researchers (reading in pairs) assessed identified studies independently, according to the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, following the PRISMA-statement.

A total of 3,963 scientific papers were identified, whereof 216 read in full text. None met the inclusion criteria, leading to an empty SR. Ethical issues were identified related to the recognized knowledge gap in terms of challenges to conduct studies that are well-designed from methodological as well as ethical perspectives.

The Authors concluded that, there is no scientific support for the use or rejection of oral analgesics administered after dental treatment in order to prevent or reduce postoperative pain. Thus, no guidelines can be formulated on this issue based solely on scientific evidence. Well-designed studies on how to prevent pain from developing after dental treatment in children and adolescents is urgently needed.

The study is interesting and well conducted. The manuscript is well written and informative

Comments

Reviewer 1: No competing interests. Accept

Reviewer 2: The authors have satisfactorily responded to all my questions and made the necessary changes to the manuscript. Accept

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rafael Badenes

17 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-18628R1

Effects and cost-effectiveness of postoperative oral analgesics for additional postoperative pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment: Health technology assessment including a systematic review

Dear Dr. Berlin:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Federico Bilotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE