Article type
Abstract
"Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are documents systematically developed to provide recommendations to help clinicians, patients, and their families in the decision-making process. Recently, there has been an increase in the studies assessing the methodological quality of CPGs, but their characteristics and methods used are known, thus a critical appraisal of that evidence is required, especially in oral diseases.
Objectives: To evaluate the available scientific evidence about the methodological quality of CPGs on prevention, diagnosis, and treatments for oral diseases.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and EMBASE (via Ovid) to identify studies reporting the methodological quality of CPGs providing recommendations on prevention, diagnosis, and treatments for oral diseases. We extracted data on the general characteristics of the included studies, the methods used, and the main findings. Two reviewers independently performed all processes of study selection and data extraction. We analyzed the evidence using a narrative synthesis and tablas.
Results: Twelve studies met the eligibility criteria, which were published between 2017 and 2024. Most studies included CPGs focused on prevention, diagnosis, and treatments for caries, periodontal diseases, dental trauma, oral cancer, general dentistry, and oral and maxillofacial surgery. Most studies used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess the methodological quality of CPGs. Overall, the methodological quality of CPGs was reported as suboptimal. Likewise, the domain with the lowest scores reported was “applicability”, whereas the domain with the highest scores reported was “scope and purpose”.
Conclusions: Overall, there is limited evidence about the methodological quality of CPGs for oral diseases and its quality is poor. Thus, greater efforts are needed to improve the reporting, implementation, and quality of CPGs in this field, which could contribute to the improvement of clinical outcomes for patients and provide better healthcare services in dental settings.
Consumer participation: Neither the public nor consumers were involved in this study.
"
Objectives: To evaluate the available scientific evidence about the methodological quality of CPGs on prevention, diagnosis, and treatments for oral diseases.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and EMBASE (via Ovid) to identify studies reporting the methodological quality of CPGs providing recommendations on prevention, diagnosis, and treatments for oral diseases. We extracted data on the general characteristics of the included studies, the methods used, and the main findings. Two reviewers independently performed all processes of study selection and data extraction. We analyzed the evidence using a narrative synthesis and tablas.
Results: Twelve studies met the eligibility criteria, which were published between 2017 and 2024. Most studies included CPGs focused on prevention, diagnosis, and treatments for caries, periodontal diseases, dental trauma, oral cancer, general dentistry, and oral and maxillofacial surgery. Most studies used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess the methodological quality of CPGs. Overall, the methodological quality of CPGs was reported as suboptimal. Likewise, the domain with the lowest scores reported was “applicability”, whereas the domain with the highest scores reported was “scope and purpose”.
Conclusions: Overall, there is limited evidence about the methodological quality of CPGs for oral diseases and its quality is poor. Thus, greater efforts are needed to improve the reporting, implementation, and quality of CPGs in this field, which could contribute to the improvement of clinical outcomes for patients and provide better healthcare services in dental settings.
Consumer participation: Neither the public nor consumers were involved in this study.
"