Outcomes in Trials for Management of Caries Lesions (OuTMaC): protocol

The research status and progress of core outcome set in oral health

The core outcome set (COS) refers to the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported by all clinical trials in a particular health field. The use of COS in clinical studies can reduce the heterogeneity caused by using different outcomes across different clinical studies, facilitate the systematic review of different clinical studies on the same topic, reduce selective reporting bias, and increase the utility of clinical studies. The importance of COS in oral health has recently been recognized. This review summarizes the history, necessity, and key methodological points of COS development, with emphasis on the research status and existing problems in COS development, in the field of oral health.

Dental Policy Lab 2 - towards paying for health in dentistry

The first Alliance for a Cavity-Free Future (ACFF)/King's College London Dental Policy Lab, held in 2017, identified the need for a review of dental payment systems in order to see progress towards achieving improvements in caries and cavities. The lack of incentivisation for preventive intervention and care has long been a barrier to progress. The second Dental Policy Lab, held in July 2018, focused on this issue with the overarching question: 'How can we create and implement acceptable prevention-based dental payment systems to achieve and maintain health outcomes?' Using a design approach and participatory research, 29 participants from five stakeholder categories developed a blueprint report that aims to serve as a framework to adapt or create remuneration systems that are compatible with evidence-based dentistry with a focus on preventive care. Aimed at policymakers and policy entrepreneurs, this blueprint provides guidance and potential solutions using several international examples. The report and accompanying infographic explored in this paper have been well received and have helped to frame discussions in several country settings, with a direct implementation which is being trialled in France in 2021.

Outcomes used in trials regarding the prevention and treatment of orthodontically induced white spot lesions: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The objective was to identify and summarize the outcomes and evaluation methods used in clinical trials regarding the prevention and treatment of orthodontically induced white spot lesions (WSLs).

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched to identify studies that were (1) clinical trials on prevention and/or treatment of orthodontically induced WSLs, (2) reported in English, and (3) published between January 2010 and October 2019. At least 2 authors assessed the eligibility and extracted the characteristics, outcomes, and evaluation methods from included studies. All disagreements were resolved through discussion.

RESULTS

Among 1328 studies identified, 51 were eligible and included. A total of 48 different outcomes and 11 different evaluation methods were used in these studies. The most frequently used outcomes were WSLs clinical visual examination scores (n = 22, 43.1%), DIAGNOdent values (n = 14; 27.5%), fluorescence loss measured with quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) (n = 10; 19.6%), and lesion area measured with QLF (n = 10; 19.6%). The most frequently used evaluation methods were clinical examination (n = 25; 49.0%), visual inspection by photographs (n = 15; 29.4%), DIAGNOdent (n = 14; 27.5%), and QLF (n = 10; 19.6%). None of the included studies reported data on quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial outcome heterogeneity exists among studies regarding the prevention and treatment of orthodontically induced WSLs. Most of the identified outcomes are aimed to assess morphologic changes of WSLs and may not reflect patient perspectives.

REGISTRATION

The Core Outcome Set for trials on the prevention and treatment of enamel White Spot Lesions (COS-WSL) project was registered in the COMET Initiative database (No. 1399).

Protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set for trials on the prevention and treatment of Orthodontically induced enamel White Spot Lesions (COS-OWSL)

BACKGROUND

Enamel white spot lesions (WSLs), characterized by an opaque, matt, and chalky white appearance of enamel, are a sign of incipient caries. WSLs are common in orthodontic practice and can affect both the oral health and dental aesthetics of patients. Extensive studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of prevention or treatment for orthodontically induced enamel WSLs. However, substantial heterogeneity has been found in the outcomes used for the prevention and treatment of WSLs in literature, which prevents researchers from comparing and combining the results of different studies to draw more decisive conclusions. Therefore, we aim to develop a Core Outcome Set for trials on the prevention and treatment of Orthodontically induced enamel White Spot Lesions (COS-OWSL).

METHODS

The development of COS-OWSL comprises four phases: (1) a scoping review to identify and summarize all existing outcomes that have been used in trials on the prevention or treatment of orthodontically induced WSLs; (2) qualitative interviews with orthodontic patients without (for prevention) and with WSL-affected teeth (for treatment) and relevant dental professionals to identify additional outcomes relevant to them; (3) Delphi surveys to collect opinions from key stakeholders including patients, dental professionals, and researchers and to reach a preliminary consensus; and (4) a consensus meeting to develop the final COS-OWSL.

DISCUSSION

The COS-OWSL will be developed to facilitate the synthesis of evidence regarding the prevention and treatment of orthodontically induced WSLs and to promote the consistent use of relevant patient-important outcomes among future studies in this field.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative (the COS-WSL project) 1399.

Developing a core outcome set for periodontal trials

BACKGROUND

There is no agreement which outcomes should be measured when investigating interventions for periodontal diseases. It is difficult to compare or combine studies with different outcomes; resulting in research wastage and uncertainty for patients and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE

Develop a core outcome set (COS) relevant to key stakeholders for use in effectiveness trials investigating prevention and management of periodontal diseases.

METHODS

Mixed method study involving literature review; online Delphi Study; and face-to-face consensus meeting.

PARTICIPANTS

Key stakeholders: patients, dentists, hygienist/therapists, periodontists, researchers.

RESULTS

The literature review identified 37 unique outcomes. Delphi round 1: 20 patients and 51 dental professional and researchers prioritised 25 and suggested an additional 11 outcomes. Delphi round 2: from the resulting 36 outcomes, 13 patients and 39 dental professionals and researchers prioritised 22 outcomes. A face-to-face consensus meeting was hosted in Dundee, Scotland by an independent chair. Eight patients and six dental professional and researchers participated. The final COS contains: Probing depths, Quality of life, Quantified levels of gingivitis, Quantified levels of plaque, Tooth loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of this COS will ensure the results of future effectiveness trials for periodontal diseases are more relevant to patients and dental professionals, reducing research wastage. This could reduce uncertainty for patients and dental professionals by ensuring the evidence used to inform their choices is meaningful to them. It could also strengthen the quality and certainty of the evidence about the relative effectiveness of interventions.

REGISTRATION

COMET Database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/265?result=true.

Economic evaluations in paediatric dentistry clinical trials

Economic evaluations play an important role in identifying the cost-effectiveness of alternative healthcare programmes, informing decisions surrounding funding and the allocation of resources. This paper outlines the basic principles of economic evaluation and how it can be conducted alongside a clinical trial. Furthermore, it considers the ways in which evidence from these studies can be used, and the challenges researchers are faced with when conducting economic evaluations in the field of children's oral health.

A systematic review of the quality and scope of economic evaluations in child oral health research

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations provide policy makers with information to facilitate efficient resource allocation. To date, the quality and scope of economic evaluations in the field of child oral health has not been evaluated. Furthermore, whilst the involvement of children in research has been actively encouraged in recent years, the success of this movement in dental health economics has not yet been explored. This review aimed to determine the quality and scope of published economic evaluations applied to children's oral health and to consider the extent of children's involvement.

METHODS

The following databases were searched: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Econlit, EThOS, MEDLINE, NHS EED, OpenGrey, Scopus, Web of Science. Full economic evaluations, relating to any aspect of child oral health, published after 1997 were included and appraised against the Drummond checklist and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards by a team of four calibrated reviewers. Data were also extracted regarding children's involvement and the outcome measures used.

RESULTS

Two thousand seven hundred fifteen studies were identified, of which 46 met the inclusion criteria. The majority (n = 38, 82%) were cost-effectiveness studies, with most focusing on the prevention or management of dental caries (n = 42, 91%). One study quantified outcomes in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), and one study utilised a child-reported outcome measure. The mean percentage of applicable Drummond checklist criteria met by the studies in this review was 48% (median = 50%, range = 0-100%) with key methodological weaknesses noted in relation to discounting of costs and outcomes. The mean percentage of applicable CHEERS criteria met by each study was 77% (median = 83%, range = 33-100%), with limited reporting of conflicts of interest. Children's engagement was largely overlooked.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of high-quality economic evaluations in the field of child oral health. This deficiency could be addressed through the endorsement of standardised economic evaluation guidelines by dental journals. The development of a child-centred utility measure for use in paediatric oral health would enable researchers to quantify outcomes in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) whilst promoting child-centred research.

Association between Dental Caries and Obesity in Children and Young People: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

To explore the association between obesity and dental caries in children and adolescents. Furthermore, to consider the possible reasons behind this relationship.

METHODS

A database search for papers published between January 2015 and May 2018, inclusive, addressing the association between obesity and dental caries was conducted. A review and critical appraisal of all included studies was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included in this review from different populations worldwide. Eight studies assessed the primary dentition, nine studies were conducted on permanent dentition, and remaining nine studies on both dentitions. The results regarding the association between obesity and dental caries were conflicting and inconsistent. Nine studies concluded that there was no relationship between obesity and dental caries. A positive association was reported in five studies, while the inverse association was reported in eleven studies. Studies included in this review had significant variations in methodology and the investigated cofactors. Possible explanations of the controversial association between obesity and dental caries are discussed in this review.

CONCLUSION

Both obesity and dental caries are multifactorial diseases, and their association is far more complex that can be explained by a single common risk factor, presenting evidence for the complexity of this association.

Outcomes in randomised controlled trials in prevention and management of carious lesions: a systematic review

Background

Inconsistent outcome reporting is one significant hurdle to combining results from trials into systematic reviews. Core outcome sets (COS) can reduce this barrier. The aim of this review was to map outcomes reported in caries prevention and management randomised controlled trials (RCT) as a first step to COS development. We also investigated RCT characteristics and reporting of primary outcomes and sample size calculations.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane CENTRAL were systematically searched (1 January 1968 to 25 August 2015). Inclusion criteria: RCTs comparing any technique for prevention or management of caries with another or placebo and RCTs comparing interventions to support patients undergoing treatment of caries (without setting, dentition or age restrictions). Categories were developed through piloting and group consensus and outcomes grouped accordingly.

Results

Of 4773 search results, 764 were potentially relevant, full text was available for 731 papers and 605 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included. For all outcomes across the time periods 1968–1980 and 2001–2010, reporting of outcome ‘caries experience’ reduced from 39% to 18%; ‘clinical performance of the restoration’ reporting increased from 33% to 42% although there was a reduction to 22% in 2011–2015. Emerging outcome domains include ‘lesion activity’ and ‘pulp health-related outcomes’, accounting for 1% and 0%, respectively, during 1968–1980 and 10% and 4% for 2011–2015. Reporting ‘resource efficiency’ and ‘quality of life measures’ have remained at a low level. No publications reported tooth survival independent of an index such as DMFT or equivalent. Primary outcomes were only identified as such in 414 (68%) of the reports.

Conclusions

Over the past 50 years, outcome reporting for trials on prevention and management of carious lesions have tended to focus on outcomes measuring caries experience and restoration material clinical performance with lesion activity and cost-effectiveness increasingly being reported. Patient-reported and patient-focused outcomes are becoming more common (although as secondary outcomes) but remain low in use. The challenge with developing a COS will be balancing commonly previously reported outcomes against those more relevant for the future.

Trial registration

PROSPERO, CRD42015025310. Registered on 14 August 2015, Trials (Schwendicke et al., Trials 16:397, 2015) and COMET initiative online (COMET, 2017).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2256-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: Design, conduct, analysis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical studies should be one main aspect underlying dentists' decision-making towards dental materials. Study design, conduct, analysis and reporting impact on the usefulness of studies. We discuss problems with current studies and highlight areas where improvement might be possible.

METHODS

Based on systematically and non-systematically collected data, we demonstrate where and why current studies in clinical dentistry deliver less-than-optimal results. Lending from general medicine, we suggest ways forward for clinical dental material science.

RESULTS

Randomized controlled (efficacy) trials remain a major pillar in dental material science, as they reduce selection bias and, if well-designed and conducted, have high internal validity. Given their costs and limited external validity, alternatives like practice-based or pragmatic controlled trials or observational studies can complement the evidence-base. Prior to conduct, researchers should focus on study comparators and setting (answering questions with relevance to clinical dentistry), and pay attention to statistical power, considering the study aim (superiority or non-inferiority trial), the expected event rate, and attrition. Study outcomes should be chosen on the basis of a core outcome set or, if not available, involving patients and other stakeholders. Studies should be registered a priori, and reporting should adhere to standards. Possible clustering should be accounted for during statistical analysis.

SIGNIFICANCE

Many clinical studies in dental material science are underpowered, and of limited validity and usefulness for daily decision-making. Dental researchers should mirror existing efforts in other medical fields in making clinical studies more valid and applicable, thus contributing to better dental care.

Core outcomes in periodontal trials: study protocol for core outcome set development

BACKGROUND

There are a large number of clinical outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of prevention and management strategies of periodontal diseases. This heterogeneity causes difficulties when trying to synthesise data for systematic reviews or clinical guidelines, reducing their impact. Core outcome sets are an agreed, standardised list of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials in specific clinical areas. We aim to develop a core outcome set for effectiveness trials investigating the prevention and management of periodontal disease in primary or secondary care.

METHODS

To identify existing outcomes we screened the Cochrane systematic reviews and their included studies on the prevention and management of periodontal diseases. The core outcome set will be defined by consensus of key stakeholders using an online e-Delphi process and face-to-face meeting. Key stakeholders involved in the development will include: patients, dentists, hygienists/therapists, specialists, clinical researchers and policy-makers. Stakeholders will be asked to prioritise outcomes and feedback will be provided in the next round(s). Stakeholders will have an opportunity to add outcomes found in the Cochrane review screening process at the end of the first round. If consensus is not reached after the second round we will provide feedback prior to a third round. Remaining outcomes will be discussed at a face-to-face meeting and agreement will be measured via defined consensus rules of outcome inclusion.

DISCUSSION

The inclusive consensus process should provide a core outcome set that is relevant to all key stakeholders. We will actively disseminate our findings to help improve clinical trials, systematic reviews and clinical guidelines with the ultimate aim of improving the prevention and management of periodontal diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

COMET ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/265?result=true ). Registered on August 2012.