Developing clinical practice guidelines for caries prevention and management for pre-school children through the ADAPTE process and Delphi consensus

Methodological quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in cariology

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in the cariology field.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search on electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, DARE and Epistemonikos), websites, and guideline organizations were undertaken. Evidence-based CPGs including at least one recommendation for clinical prevention and/or management of dental caries, developed for any clinical setting, were included. The quality of each guideline was evaluated using the AGREE II tool. Descriptive analysis was performed and the average overall score for each domain was calculated.

RESULTS

Thirty-two guidelines were included. Most of the CPGs achieved higher scores for the domains of clarity of presentation (66.7%, 95% IC 37.3-52.2) and scope and purpose (59.6%, 95% IC 53.7-65.5) domains; and lower scores for editorial independence (46.1%, 95% IC 37.8-55.7) and applicability domain (44.7%, 95% IC 37-55.3). The reviewers assessed 12 CPGs (37.5%) as recommended for use, 15 (46.9%) recommended with modifications, and 5 (15.6%) as not recommended.

CONCLUSION

The overall methodological quality of evidence-based CPGs in the cariology field is moderate, and there is a need for improvements in reporting related to most domains. The poorest reporting was found in the description of the domains' applicability of its recommendations and editorial independence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinical Practice Guidelines provide guidance to patients, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders. The quality of these documents is essential for establishing trust in their recommendations.

Clinical practice guideline adaptation for risk-based caries management in 18-55 year-old Iranian adults

PURPOSE

To adapt an evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) for risk-based management of caries in 18-55 year-old Iranian adults.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary adaptation team reviewed evidence-based guidelines such as the NICE, SIGN, and ADA according to the defined clinical questions. In addition, databases such as the PubMed and Google Scholar were searched and CPGs were screened and appraised using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) tool. Clinical scenarios were developed and their level of evidence, clinical advantage and adaptability were assessed. Following a two-round ranking by experts, the final recommendations were selected using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method.

RESULTS

Of 17 CPGs, 5 were selected as the source guidelines for adaptation. To assess the risk of caries in the adult population, reduced Cariogram (without saliva tests) and CAMBRA were suggested as diagnostic tools. In addition, 53 risk-based recommendations on the preventive care (including the use of fluoride toothpaste, fluoride, and chlorhexidine mouthwash, at home and in-office fluoride gel, fluoride varnish, mouth buffering, and sealant), operative intervention threshold, and follow-up interval were adapted for Iranian adults.

CONCLUSIONS

A guideline was adapted for risk-based management of dental caries in Iranian adults. This helps local dentists in decision making and promoting oral health of adults. Further research is needed to assess the external validity and feasibility of the adapted guideline in the Iranian population.

THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING CONSENSUS GUIDELINES BY DENTAL ONCOLOGISTS FOR PRE-RADIOTHERAPY DENTAL CARE IN HEAD AND NECK CANCER PATIENTS USING THE MODIFIED DELPHI TECHNIQUE

BACKGROUND

There is a range of pre-radiation therapy (RT) dental care strategies used to prevent the side effects associated with the use of RT in the treatment of head and neck cancer. However, there is a paucity of evidence-based, prospectively tested clinical practice guidelines for dentists to utilize in the provision of care prior to RT.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to describe the process of creating consensus guidelines for dental care in head and neck cancer patients undergoing RT using the Modified Delphi Technique.

PROCEDURE

We invited 44 dental oncologists to participate as panelists in the study. Three rounds of iterative structured surveys were completed within eight months, followed by a virtual meeting to conclude the modified Delphi process. Questions were divided into six main domains and patients were categorized as low, moderate, and high-risk based on factors identified by panelists and agreed upon during the first round. The threshold value set for each round of the Delphi process was a 70% response rate and 75% Consensus level.

FINDINGS

Eighteen panelists out of the forty-four (41% overall response rate) completed the study. The number of questions that achieved the set consensus level in rounds 1,2,3 and the virtual meeting were 24%, 62%,61% and 81%, respectively. A confidence level of 95% and a response rate of >75% were reached throughout the process.

CONCLUSION

Consensus was attained in most of the questions in all domains, which will be utilized to develop guidelines for dental care in head and neck cancer patients before the commencement of RT.

Clinical practice guideline for end-of-life care in patients with cancer: a modified ADAPTE process

PURPOSE

This study seeks to adapt a guideline for end-of-life care in patients with cancer to be used by healthcare teams.

METHODS

This methodological study was conducted by modifying the ADAPTE process and adding to it a qualitative study and consensus ratings by a multidisciplinary panel of experts. A qualitative study was thus performed to identify the end-of-life needs of patients with cancer. Then, the source guidelines and the results of the qualitative study were used to draft the initial version of the guideline, with 85 adaptation recommendations. A multidisciplinary panel of healthcare experts performed the external review of the recommendations based on the four criteria of relatedness, comprehensibility, usefulness, and feasibility and scored them on a scale of 1-9. The mean score of each recommendation was calculated, and the recommendations were classified into three categories: appropriate (mean score of 7-9), uncertain (mean score of 4-6.99), and inappropriate (mean score of 1-3.99).

RESULTS

All the recommendations were approved, as they all had a mean score of 7 or higher, and were then categorized into 11 dimensions: communication management; participatory and evidence-based decision-making management; pain management; dyspnea management; nausea and vomiting management; anorexia and cachexia management; constipation management; death rattle management; management of delirium, anxiety, and restlessness; hydration management; and pharmacological considerations.

CONCLUSION

The adaptation of the guideline for end-of-life care in patients with cancer in Iran was performed by modifying the ADAPTE process with the participation of multidisciplinary stakeholders and based on the local needs.

Risk factors for postoperative recurrence of anal fistula identified by an international, evidence-based Delphi consultation survey of surgical specialists

BACKGROUND

Despite the emerging knowledge about postoperative anal fistula recurrence (AFR) and the increasing number of clinical studies, there is no better understanding or consensus regarding the risk factors for AFR. The aim of this study was to generate international consensus guidance statements focusing on AFR.

METHODS

A two-round modified Delphi process was conducted among international surgical specialists via an online survey delivered by email with a secure link created with Google Forms. Surgeons were asked to use a 9-point Likert scale to rate the importance of patient-, fistula-, and surgery-related statements developed based on our previous systematic review. Consensus was reached when at least 70% of panel members rated a statement as being of critical importance (ratings of 7-9).

RESULTS

Of a total of 60 experts invited, 38 experts representing 13 countries from four continents agreed to participate in the first round of the Delphi process and 31 in the second round. In total, consensus was reached on 14 statements on the risk factors for AFR in three domains: patient-related risk factors included comorbid colitis, inflammatory bowel disease and use of immunosuppressants; fistula-related factors included transsphincteric fistula, number of fistula, horseshoe extension, undetected internal opening, location of anal fistula, recurrent fistula, suprasphincteric fistula, and height of the internal opening; and surgery-related factors included type of surgery, previous fistula surgery and surgeon.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi study provides an evidence-based profile of risk factors for AFR in the patient-, surgery- and fistula-related domains from a global perspective. Clinically, these indicators can be incorporated to develop risk calculation tools for the early detection of AFR in high-risk patients, allowing early prevention and intervention.