A flood tide of systematic reviews on endodontic posts: methodological assessment using of R-AMSTAR

Assessing dentists' knowledge and experience in restoring endodontically treated teeth using post & cores

OBJECTIVES

The restoration of endodontically, heavily filled teeth has been a challenge for the dental profession for decades. The aims of this study were to investigate dentists' experience and knowledge in the use of post & core when restoring endodontically treated teeth.

METHOD

This was a mixed method study incorporating quantitative and qualitative data collection. An online questionnaire was developed and distributed, comprised of 18 questions. It was calculated that 93 respondents were needed to validate the study of which 60% should meet a minimum knowledge requirement.

RESULTS

173 respondents completed the questionnaire. 109 (63% (95%CI56%,70%) demonstrated proficient knowledge of post & core restorations. Recent graduates were more likely to follow current guidelines (F = 4.570: P<0.034). As the age of respondent dentists increases the number of posts placed (F = 18.85; p<0.001) and the perceived confidence level increases (Spearman's Rho 0.43: P<0.01). Experience of postgraduate education also positively influenced clinical confidence.

CONCLUSION

The placement of post & cores is influenced by age. Confidence is also influenced by age. More evidence on post usage is required and several questions remain to be answered on what drives decision making and perceived long-term success.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

There is a general acceptance of when a post and core restoration should be used. Clinician experience and age can have an impact on what type of restorations are used. Fibre posts are more commonly used due their accessibility and cost.

Quality Assessment of Published Systematic Reviews in High Impact Cardiology Journals: Revisiting the Evidence Pyramid

Objective: Systematic reviews are increasingly used as sources of evidence in clinical cardiology guidelines. In the present study, we aimed to assess the quality of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals.

Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2019 in five general cardiology journals with the highest impact factor (according to Clarivate Analytics 2019). We extracted data on eligibility criteria, methodological characteristics, bias assessments, and sources of funding. Further, we assessed the quality of retrieved reviews using the AMSTAR tool.

Results: A total of 352 systematic reviews were assessed. The AMSTAR quality score was low or critically low in 71% (95% CI: 65.7–75.4) of the assessed reviews. Sixty-four reviews (18.2%, 95% CI: 14.5–22.6) registered/published their protocol. Only 221 reviews (62.8%, 95% CI: 57.6–67.7) reported adherence to the EQUATOR checklists, 208 reviews (58.4%, 95% CI: 53.9–64.1) assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and 177 reviews (52.3%, 95% CI: 45.1–55.5) assessed the risk of publication bias in their primary outcome analysis. The primary outcome was statistically significant in 274 (79.6%, 95% CI: 75.1–83.6) and had statistical heterogeneity in 167 (48.5%, 95% CI: 43.3–53.8) reviews. The use and sources of external funding was not disclosed in 87 reviews (24.7%, 95% CI: 20.5–29.5). Data analysis showed that the existence of publication bias was significantly associated with statistical heterogeneity of the primary outcome and that complex design, larger sample size, and higher AMSTAR quality score were associated with higher citation metrics.

Conclusion: Our analysis uncovered widespread gaps in conducting and reporting systematic reviews in cardiology. These findings highlight the importance of rigorous editorial and peer review policies in systematic review publishing, as well as education of the investigators and clinicians on the synthesis and interpretation of evidence.

Retrospective analysis of survival rates of post-and-cores in a dental school setting

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The clinical survival of different types of post-and-core systems requires assessment.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the clinical survival rate (CSR) of custom-fabricated cast metal and prefabricated (both metal- and fiber-reinforced composite resin post) post-and-cores as a function of patient- and restoration-related variables.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on electronic charts indicating that these patients had received some type of post-and-core between January 2003 and January 2018. A total of 754 records were included in the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated the mean survival time for each group to be 12.0 years for fiber-reinforced composite resin posts, 11.8 years for cast metal post-and-cores, and 10.2 years for prefabricated metal posts. Although the mean survival time differed by 1.8 years among groups, with prefabricated metal posts having a slightly higher risk of failure, this effect was not statistically significant (P=.067). The effect of post type also failed to reach significance when controlling for patient demographics and post position in a Cox proportional hazards analysis (P=.106). However, the Cox model did show that survival was associated with tooth position (P=.003), cement (P=.021), and type of restoration (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis showed no evidence that post-and-core survival was significantly associated with 3 types of post-and-cores (custom-fabricated metal, prefabricated metal, and prefabricated fiber-reinforced composite resin). The percentage of root in the bone, tooth position, cement, and type of restoration, however, were significantly associated with survival.

Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews (SRs) attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews. This is the second of two papers from a study aiming to develop a comprehensive evidence map of the methods used in overviews. Our objectives were to (a) develop a framework of methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews (stage I)-the Methods for Overviews of Reviews (MOoR) framework-and (b) to create an evidence map by mapping studies that have evaluated overview methods to the framework (stage II). In the first paper, we reported findings for the four initial steps of an overview (specification of purpose, objectives and scope; eligibility criteria; search methods; data extraction). In this paper, we report the remaining steps: assessing risk of bias; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessing certainty of the evidence arising from the overview.

METHODS

In stage I, we identified cross-sectional studies, guidance documents and commentaries that described methods proposed for, or used in, overviews. Based on these studies, we developed a framework of possible methods for overviews, categorised by the steps in conducting an overview. Multiple iterations of the framework were discussed and refined by all authors. In stage II, we identified studies evaluating methods and mapped these evaluations to the framework.

RESULTS

Forty-two stage I studies described methods relevant to one or more of the latter steps of an overview. Six studies evaluating methods were included in stage II. These mapped to steps involving (i) the assessment of risk of bias (RoB) in SRs (two SRs and three primary studies, all reporting evaluation of RoB tools) and (ii) the synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings (one primary study evaluating methods for measuring overlap).

CONCLUSION

Many methods have been described for use in the latter steps in conducting an overview; however, evaluation and guidance for applying these methods is sparse. The exception is RoB assessment, for which a multitude of tools exist-several with sufficient evaluation and guidance to recommend their use. Evaluation of other methods is required to provide a comprehensive evidence map.

Methodological quality of meta-analyses of single-case experimental studies

BACKGROUND

Methodological rigor is a fundamental factor in the validity and credibility of the results of a meta-analysis.

AIM

Following an increasing interest in single-case experimental design (SCED) meta-analyses, the current study investigates the methodological quality of SCED meta-analyses.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

We assessed the methodological quality of 178 SCED meta-analyses published between 1985 and 2015 through the modified Revised-Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

The main finding of the current review is that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, but is still low according to the R-AMSTAR checklist. A remarkable percentage of the studies (93.80% of the included SCED meta-analyses) did not even reach the midpoint score (22, on a scale of 0-44). The mean and median methodological quality scores were 15.57 and 16, respectively. Relatively high scores were observed for "providing the characteristics of the included studies" and "doing comprehensive literature search". The key areas of deficiency were "reporting an assessment of the likelihood of publication bias" and "using the methods appropriately to combine the findings of studies".

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although the results of the current review reveal that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, still more efforts are needed to improve their methodological quality.

A survey of Australian prosthodontists: the use of posts in endodontically treated teeth

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to gain insight into common practises of Australian prosthodontists when placing a post in an endodontically treated tooth (ETT).

METHODS

A 17-question open- and closed-format questionnaire was sent to registered Australian prosthodontists. The response rate was 55% (N = 95).

RESULTS

The majority of respondents indicated the purpose of a post was to retain a core (N = 94, 99%). The decision to place a post is affected by the quantity of remaining tooth structure (N = 91, 96%) and the definitive restoration (N = 68, 72%). The ideal post length is neither a short nor long post with the most frequent response (N = 52, 34%) being 'as long as possible without disturbing the apical seal'. The apical seal requirements were defined as 4-5 mm of gutta-percha for 77% of respondents. The most preferred post type was a custom cast metal post (N = 85, 49%). The most popular luting cement was resin composite (N = 84, 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this survey do not provide a definitive guide for restoring an ETT. However, it illustrates how Australian prosthodontists address this clinical challenge. The multiple responses received for a number of questions suggest that the material and technique employed in the Australian context is influenced by the individual clinical case.

Dentin-like versus Rigid Endodontic Post: 11-year Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial on No-wall to 2-wall Defects

INTRODUCTION

This is the first long-term randomized controlled trial to evaluate dentin-like glass fiber posts (GFPs) compared with rather rigid titanium posts (TPs) for post-endodontic restoration of severely damaged endodontically treated teeth with 2 or fewer remaining cavity walls.

METHODS

Ninety-one subjects in need of post-endodontic restorations were randomly assigned to receive either a tapered GFP (n = 45) or TP (n = 46). Posts were adhesively luted by using self-adhesive resin cement, followed by composite core build-up and preparation of 2-mm ferrule design. Primary end point was loss of restoration for any reason. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed, and log-rank test was calculated (P < .05).

RESULTS

After a follow-up of 132 months, 17 GFP and 20 TP restorations survived, and 19 failed (12 GFP, 7 TP). Failure modes for GFP were root fracture (n = 4), core fracture (n = 1), secondary caries (n = 1), endodontic failure (n = 2), extraction because of tooth mobility grade III associated with insufficient design of removable partial denture (n = 1), tooth fracture (n = 1), and changes in treatment plan (n = 2); failure modes for TP were endodontic failure (n = 5), root fracture (n = 1), and 1 extraction for other reasons. Cumulative survival probability was 58.7% for GFP and 74.2% for TP.

CONCLUSIONS

When using self-adhesively luted prefabricated posts, resin composite core build-up, and 2-mm ferrule to reconstruct severely damaged endodontically treated teeth, tooth survival is not influenced by post rigidity. Survival decreased rapidly after 8 years of observation in both groups.

Uncertain Decision-Making in Primary Root Canal Treatment

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review of literature was conducted to compare the success and survivability of primary root canal interventions.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses protocol was adopted in this study to systematically assess and report systematic reviews related to success or survival or failure rates of primary root canal interventions. MEDLINE and Cochrane Oral Health Library were both searched by using specific search terms to identify relevant literature, until June 2016. The search was augmented by handsearching. Then, the quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed by using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (RAMSTAR) protocol.

RESULTS

Only 9 systematic reviews were identified. The RAMSTAR scores of the included reviews ranged from 43/44 to 29/44. Nevertheless, the later reviews did not provide sufficient evidence or statistically significant evidence to support any of the interventions used during primary root canal treatment. In addition, a number of key steps during primary root canal treatment, such as types of dental files, root canal instrumentation techniques, orthograde obturation materials, and techniques, were not assessed by systematic reviews.

CONCLUSION

The current status of evidence related to the success and survivability of primary root canal interventions is lacking. This puts dentists under marked degrees of uncertainty. Consequently, patients are potentially exposed to health care risks. It is then essential to develop tailored methods and tools for decision-making under uncertainty to aid both dentists and patients engaged in primary root canal treatment.

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports.

RESULTS

Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Complications of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and single crowns or fixed dental prostheses-a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The present systematic review aimed at assessing data from the literature on endodontic and prosthetic complications in endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and single crowns (SCs) or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Available randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating endodontic and prosthetic complications in the teeth treated with fiber posts and restored with different prosthetic restorations were reviewed. PubMed, Evidence-Based Dentistry, BMJ Clinical Evidence, Embase, DynaMed, and gray literature restricted to scientific literature were analyzed; also, manual researches were performed. English language and time filters (from 1990 to 2015) were used.

RESULTS

The database search produced 4230 records, many of which were duplicates. The manual research did not produce any other relevant article. After duplications were removed, all the selected databases produced 3670 records. Reading titles and abstracts, two independent reviewers excluded 3664 reports. The full-texts of the remaining six reports were read. Only four studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

The most frequently reported failures in the available studies were as follows: fiber post debonding, loss of retention of single crowns, and marginal gaps. Less frequently, chippings and fractures were recorded in SCs. No studies about complications related to FDPs were found.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A correlation between the failure rates of fiber posts and the type of prosthetic restorations just like SCs and FDPs cannot be found to date. Further randomized controlled clinical studies are required to achieve evidence-based conclusions, particularly about the use of fiber posts with FDPs.

Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement

A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a commonly used tool to assess the quality of systematic reviews; however, modifications are needed to improve its usability, reliability, and validity. In this commentary, we summarize our experience and the experiences of others who have used AMSTAR and provide suggestions for its improvement. We propose that AMSTAR should modify a number of individual items and their instructions and responses to make them more congruent with an assessment of the methodologic quality of systematic reviews. We recommend adding new items and modifying existing items to assess the quality of the body of evidence and to address subgroup and sensitivity analyses. More detailed instructions are needed for scoring individual items across multiple reviewers, and we recommend that a total score should not be calculated. These suggestions need to be empirically tested prior to implementation.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews addressing femoroacetabular impingement

PURPOSE

As the body of literature on femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) continues to grow, clinicians turn to systematic reviews to remain current with the best available evidence. The quality of systematic reviews in the FAI literature is currently unknown. The goal of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of systematic reviews addressing FAI over the last 11 years (2003-2014) and to identify the specific methodological shortcomings and strengths.

METHODS

A search of the electronic databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed, was performed to identify relevant systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed by two reviewers using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) scoring tool. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) was used to determine agreement between reviewers on R-AMSTAR quality scores.

RESULTS

A total of 22 systematic reviews were assessed for methodological quality. The mean consensus R-AMSTAR score across all studies was 26.7 out of 40.0, indicating fair methodological quality. An ICC of 0.931, 95 % CI 0.843-0.971 indicated excellent agreement between reviewers during the scoring process.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic reviews addressing FAI are generally of fair methodological quality. Use of tools such as the R-AMSTAR score or PRISMA guidelines while designing future systematic reviews can assist in eliminating methodological shortcomings identified in this review. These shortcomings need to be kept in mind by clinicians when applying the current literature to their patient populations and making treatment decisions. Systematic reviews of highest methodological quality should be used by clinicians when possible to answer clinical questions.

Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties

OBJECTIVES

To summarize all available evidence on measurement properties in terms of reliability, validity, and feasibility of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, including R(evised)-AMSTAR.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psycinfo, and CINAHL were searched for studies containing information on measurement properties of the tools in October 2013. We extracted data on study characteristics and measurement properties. These data were analyzed following measurement criteria.

RESULTS

We included 13 studies, four of them were labeled as validation studies. Nine articles dealt with AMSTAR, two articles dealt with R-AMSTAR, and one article dealt with both instruments. In terms of interrater reliability, most items showed a substantial agreement (>0.6). The median intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the overall score of AMSTAR was 0.83 (range 0.60-0.98), indicating a high agreement. In terms of validity, ICCs were very high with all but one ICC lower than 0.8 when the AMSTAR score was compared with scores from other tools. Scoring AMSTAR takes between 10 and 20 minutes.

CONCLUSION

AMSTAR seems to be reliable and valid. Further investigations for systematic reviews of other study designs than randomized controlled trials are needed. R-AMSTAR should be further investigated as evidence for its use is limited and its measurement properties have not been studied sufficiently. In general, test-retest reliability should be investigated in future studies.