What is the methodological quality of published dental implant guidelines?

Howe, Mark-Steven ORCID: 0000-0003-2814-4914 (2017) What is the methodological quality of published dental implant guidelines? Evidence-based dentistry, 18 (2). pp. 35-36.

Other S-00132-G(1).rtf - Author Accepted Manuscript Download (319kB)

Abstract

Data sourcesSix implant dentistry journals with impact factors (2014) assigned by Journal Citation Reports (Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, European Journal of Oral Implants, The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, Journal of Oral Implantology, and Implant Dentistry) and the Medline database.Study selectionTwo reviewers independently selected guidelines published between May 2009 and February 2016.Data evaluationFollowing training four reviewers independently applied the Agree II tool (http://www.agreetrust.org/) to the selected guidelines with disagreements being resolved by discussion. Scores for the six domains of the AGREE II tool were presented as median percentages of the maximum possible with their respective interquartile ranges (IQR). Domain scores were divided into consensus guidelines, and consensus guidelines with systematic reviews.ResultsTwenty-seven consensus guidelines were included, with 19 contributing to the comparisons between groups. Twenty-six guidelines were developed after meetings in Europe, with the European Association of Osseointergration developing the most guidelines (n=9). The number of authors for the guidelines varied from 2-27 (median, 9). For consensus guidelines only domain four scored highest. Guidelines with systematic review scored higher for all domains with the exception of domain five (Table 1).ConclusionsThere is room to improve the quality of consensus guidelines published in highly ranked implant dentistry journals. Clinicians' and researchers' development of consensus guidelines to improve clinical treatment with dental implants is laudable. However, as for primary and secondary research, these guidelines should adhere to high and transparent standards. The AGREE II instrument can be used as a reference for the development of high-quality guidelines to provide unbiased and adequate clinical recommendations to clinicians working with dental implants.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Humans, Dental Implants, Dentistry, Consensus, Europe
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	17 Jul 2017 08:40
Last Modified:	19 Jan 2023 06:59
DOI:	10.1038/sj.ebd.6401231
Related URLs:	Author Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3008505