Article type
Abstract
Background: Oral diseases are a major global public health problem, impacting the quality of life of those affected. While consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health (OH) guidelines.
Objectives: This study aimed to systematically identify organizations that develop evidence-informed guidelines in OH care and oral public health globally and survey their methodological process and the terminology used.
Methods: We searched numerous electronic databases, guideline repositories, and websites of guideline developers, scientific societies, and international organizations (January 2012–October 2023) to identify organizations that develop guidelines addressing any OH topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of evidence in their development. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible organizations according to predefined selection criteria and extracted data about the organization’s characteristics and the process followed when formulating formal recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and summarize data.
Results: We included 46 organizations that developed evidence-informed guidelines in OH. The organizations were mainly professional associations and scientific societies (67%), followed by governmental organizations (28%). The methodology used in the 55 guideline document types varied across the organizations, but only 19 (35%) contained formal recommendations. Half (51%) of the guideline documents referred to a methodology handbook, 46% suggested a structured approach or system for rating the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, and 37% mentioned using a framework to move from evidence to decisions, with the GRADE-EtD being the most widely used (27%). Guideline developer organizations use more than 20 different terms to refer to documents that contained recommendations to inform OH care, and seven terms in documents that provided public health-related recommendations
Conclusion: The results of this study underscore the need for alignment and standardization of both terminology and methodologies used in OH with those recognized internationally in the medical field. This inconsistency threatens the usability and application of recommendations by target users and limits the ability of OH guidelines to transcend to other healthcare professionals and stakeholders, such as policymakers and patients.
Objectives: This study aimed to systematically identify organizations that develop evidence-informed guidelines in OH care and oral public health globally and survey their methodological process and the terminology used.
Methods: We searched numerous electronic databases, guideline repositories, and websites of guideline developers, scientific societies, and international organizations (January 2012–October 2023) to identify organizations that develop guidelines addressing any OH topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of evidence in their development. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible organizations according to predefined selection criteria and extracted data about the organization’s characteristics and the process followed when formulating formal recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and summarize data.
Results: We included 46 organizations that developed evidence-informed guidelines in OH. The organizations were mainly professional associations and scientific societies (67%), followed by governmental organizations (28%). The methodology used in the 55 guideline document types varied across the organizations, but only 19 (35%) contained formal recommendations. Half (51%) of the guideline documents referred to a methodology handbook, 46% suggested a structured approach or system for rating the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, and 37% mentioned using a framework to move from evidence to decisions, with the GRADE-EtD being the most widely used (27%). Guideline developer organizations use more than 20 different terms to refer to documents that contained recommendations to inform OH care, and seven terms in documents that provided public health-related recommendations
Conclusion: The results of this study underscore the need for alignment and standardization of both terminology and methodologies used in OH with those recognized internationally in the medical field. This inconsistency threatens the usability and application of recommendations by target users and limits the ability of OH guidelines to transcend to other healthcare professionals and stakeholders, such as policymakers and patients.