| Literature DB >> 34901279 |
Farooq Ahmad Chaudhary1, Ayesha Fazal1, Muhammad Mohsin Javaid1, Muhammad Waqar Hussain2, Ammar Ahmed Siddiqui3, Mawra Hyder1, Mohammad Khursheed Alam4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of acquiring COVID-19 during a pandemic is a major concern among health care workers. Dental professionals being in close proximity to the patients had been exposed more than other health care workers. Hence, all the standard operating procedures (SOPs) are strictly advised to be followed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34901279 PMCID: PMC8664529 DOI: 10.1155/2021/8963168
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Quality assessment of included studies (risk of bias).
| Risks of bias items | Patel et al. (2020) | Ates et al. (2020) |
|---|---|---|
| Was the study's target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables, e.g., age, sex, and occupation? | 1 | 1 |
| Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population? | 1 | 1 |
| Was some form of random selection used to select the sample? | 0 | 1 |
| Was the likelihood of nonresponse bias minimal? | 1 | 1 |
| Were data collected directly from the subjects (as opposed to a proxy)? | 1 | 1 |
| Was an acceptable case definition used in the study? | 1 | 1 |
| Was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest shown to have reliability and validity | 1 | 0 |
| Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate | 0 | 0 |
| Was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects? | 1 | 1 |
| Total points | 7 | 7 |
Summary on the overall risk of study bias: low risk = 0-3, medium risk = 4-6, and high risk = 7-9. 0 = yes, low risk; 1 = no, high risk.
Quality assessment form for multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR).
| Silva et al. (2020) | Azim et al. (2020) | Banakar et al. (2020) | Abramovitz et al. (2020) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was a priori design provided? | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2. Were there duplicate study selection and data extraction? | N | N | Y | N |
| 3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? | Y | Y | Y | N |
| 4. Was the status of publication (i.e., grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? | Y | Y | Y | N |
| 5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? | N | Y | Y | N |
| 6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? | N | Y | Y | N |
| 7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? | N | N | N | Y |
| 8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? | N | N | Y | Y |
| 9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? | Y | N | N | N |
| 11. Was the conflict of interest included? | N | Y | Y | Y |
Y: yes; N: no; CA: cannot answer; NA: not applicable.
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram showing study characteristics.
Figure 2Endodontic clinical recommendations amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
An overview of recommendations on endodontic interventions amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S. no. | Title | Type of study | Outcome of paper | Author (year/country) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | To drill or not to drill: management of endodontic emergencies and in-process patients during the COVID-19 pandemic | Clinical research | (i) Out of 21 patients (with complaints of 25 teeth) at a follow-up rate of 96%, 83% received palliative care and required no further endodontic treatment | Patel et al. (March 2020/Texas, USA) [ |
| 2 | Recommendations for managing endodontic emergencies during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak | Review article | (i) Minimal aerosol production procedures, with 4-handed dentistry, are recommended | Silva et al. (May 2020/USA) [ |
| 3 | Clinical endodontic management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a literature review and clinical recommendations | Review article | (i) If flu-like symptoms persist/or the patient came in contact with the positive case, then defer the treatment | Azim et al. (2020/New York, USA) [ |
| 4 | COVID-19 transmission risk and protective protocols in dentistry: a systematic review | Systematic review | (i) Before, during, and after the treatment, guidelines are to be followed as per standard operating procedures | Banakar et al. (2020/Iran) [ |
| 5 | Differences in endodontic management by endodontists and general dental practitioners in COVID-19 times | Original article | (i) Initial screening was practiced better by the general dental practitioners (GDPs) as compared to endodontists | Ates et al. (2020/Jordan) [ |
| 6 | Dental care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak: operatory considerations and clinical aspects | Review article | (i) Treatment of asymptomatic patients was to be delayed | Abramovitz et al. (2020/USA) [ |