Promoting integrity in scholarly research and its publication: International Endodontic Journal policy on reporting conflicts of interest, funding and acknowledgments within manuscripts submitted for publication

Efficacy of imaging techniques for the diagnosis of apical periodontitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Apical periodontitis (AP) is a chronic inflammatory response of microbial aetiology. Pathological changes associated with AP may not be visible on radiographic images and may linger without causing any symptoms. Clinicians rely mostly on clinical examination and imaging techniques to establish a diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to answer the following question using the PICO format: In the adult human permanent dentition (P), what is the efficacy of diagnostic imaging of the periapical tissues (I) using histopathology as a reference standard (C) in the diagnosis of apical periodontitis, in terms of diagnostic accuracy (O).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for English articles published through October 2021. At least two independent reviewers evaluated the study design, imaging modality used, histopathological assessment, outcome measures, results and conclusions for each article. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.

RESULTS

The initial search strategy identified 544 articles. Seven articles were included for analysis in the final review, all of which involved tissue samples obtained from cadavers. No clinical studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria. A consistently low sensitivity score and negative predictive value were reported for periapical radiography, especially in comparison to CBCT, which scored highly. Both modalities achieved high scores for specificity and positive predictive value. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT was lower for root-filled teeth in comparison to non-root-filled teeth.

DISCUSSION

Assessment of the periapical tissues using periapical radiographs was shown to have a low to moderate agreement with the histopathological assessment. CBCT was reported to be more accurate than PR and demonstrated a good agreement with histopathology, especially for non-root-filled teeth.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a need for greater standardization in methodology and reporting, and as the findings are based on cadaver studies, their clinical relevance must be interpreted with caution.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021272147).

PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in endodontics: Explanation and elaboration

Observational studies play a critical role in evaluating the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations as well as in defining the benefits and potential hazards of health-related interventions. There are currently no reporting guidelines for observational studies in the field of Endodontics. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team has developed and published new reporting guidelines for observational-based studies called the 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023' guidelines. The PROBE 2023 guidelines were developed exclusively for the speciality of Endodontics by integrating and adapting the 'STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)' checklist and the 'Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP)' principles. The recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines were adhered to throughout the process of developing the guidelines. The purpose of this document is to serve as a guide for authors by providing an explanation for each of the items in the PROBE 2023 checklist along with relevant examples from the literature. The document also offers advice to authors on how they can address each item in their manuscript before submission to a journal. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely accessible and downloadable from the PRIDE website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics

AIM

The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item - 'Yes' - when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes' - when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No' - when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ("Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?"), Item 8 ("Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?"), Item 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?") and Item 16 ("Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?") , whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ("Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?"). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorised as "Critically low", one review was "Low", two reviews were "Moderate" and one review was "High".

CONCLUSION

The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for Editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.