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

Heterogeneity of outcome measures in the clinical trials of treatment for oral submucous fibrosis-Systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review was performed to evaluate the range of outcome measures used in interventional trials for oral submucous fibrosis (OSF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2004 to 2018 about OSF treatment. All the outcome measures and measurement methods mentioned in the trials were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 120 published papers, 12 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria were included. A total of 38 single outcome measures and 29 composite outcome measures were considered under four different outcome domains, of which clinical symptoms and clinical response were the most commonly used. The linear measurement of mouth opening (11 trials; 91.66%) and Visual Analogue Scale (10 trials, 83.33%) were the predominant measurement methods.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the high heterogeneity in outcome measures in therapeutic RCTs of OSF. This lack of widely agreed standard outcome measures in OSF is a great concern as it prevents the comparison of studies and meta-analyses to gather evidence. There is a dire need of establishing a core outcome set for reporting in the future clinical trials that may help facilitate treatment choice for OSF to improve life quality of patients.

A Scoping Review of 4 Decades of Outcomes in Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Retreatment, and Apexification Studies-Part 2: Outcome Measures

INTRODUCTION

Inconsistencies in the definitions of endodontic outcome terminology jeopardize evaluations of proposed interventions and patient care quality. This scoping review aimed to provide groundwork to develop a set of basic outcomes in endodontics.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series (≥10 patients) published after 1980 with patients ≥10 years of age with any preoperative pulpal and periapical diagnosis in permanent teeth requiring nonsurgical root canal treatment, retreatment, or apexification. Abstracted data on outcome assessment methods, assessors, and domains were reported after univariate and bivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment outcomes were evaluated radiographically (88%) or clinically (73%). Although 2-dimensional radiography exceeded 3-dimensional radiography, the use of the latter has increased since 2010, mostly for nonsurgical retreatments. Of 19 identified outcomes, 5 were most frequent: success (168 studies, 40%), radiographic healing (128 studies, 30%), survival (of an asymptomatic tooth [48 studies, 12%] or of a procedure code in administrative databases [31 studies, 7%]), pain assessment (14 studies, 3%), and quality of life (11 studies, 3%). Clinician-centered outcomes have been most frequently studied since the 1980s (71%), in academic settings (76%), and using a prospective design (45%). Patient-centered outcomes were reported in 19% of studies before 2010 and 30% since 2010. They were more common among retrospective studies (49%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-centered outcome measures are lacking in endodontic studies. The state of available research can provide a baseline for the development of a core outcome set in endodontics, which should represent the important patient-centered outcomes in conjunction with well-validated clinician-centered outcomes.

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.

Endpoints of active periodontal therapy

Aim

Position paper on endpoints of active periodontal therapy for designing treatment guidelines. The question was as follows: How are, for an individual patient, commonly applied periodontal probing measures—recorded after active periodontal therapy—related to (a) stability of clinical attachment level, (b) tooth survival, (c) need for re‐treatment or (d) oral health‐related quality of life.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations and Daily <1946 to 07 June 2019>.

Results

A total of 94 papers were retrieved. From the literature search, it was found that periodontitis patients with a low proportion of deep residual pockets after active periodontal therapy are more likely to have stability of clinical attachment level over a follow‐up time of ≥1 year. Other supporting literature confirms this finding and additionally reports, at the patient level, that probing pocket depths ≥6 mm and bleeding on probing scores ≥30% are risks for tooth loss. There is lack of evidence that periodontal probing measures after completion of active periodontal treatment are tangible to the patient.

Conclusions

Based on literature and biological plausibility, it is reasonable to state that periodontitis patients with a low proportion of residual periodontal pockets and little inflammation are more likely to have stability of clinical attachment levels and less tooth loss over time. Guidelines for periodontal therapy should take into consideration (a) long‐term tangible patient outcomes, (b) that shallow pockets (≤4 mm) without bleeding on probing in patients with <30% bleeding sites are the best guarantee for the patient for stability of his/her periodontal attachment, (c) patient heterogeneity and patient changes in immune response over time, and (d) that treatment strategies include lifestyle changes of the patient. Long‐term large population‐based and practice‐based studies on the efficacy of periodontal therapies including both clinical and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) need to be initiated, which include the understanding that periodontitis is a complex disease with variation of inflammatory responses due to environment, (epi)genetics, lifestyle and ageing. Involving people living with periodontitis as co‐researchers in the design of these studies would also help to improve their relevance.

Outcomes for Pressure Ulcer Trials (OUTPUTs): protocol for the development of a core domain set for trials evaluating the clinical efficacy or effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention interventions

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets (COS) are being developed in many clinical areas to increase the quality and comparability of clinical trial results as well as to ensure their relevance for patients. A COS represents an agreed standardized set of outcomes that describes the minimum that should be consistently reported in all clinical trials of a defined area. It comprises a core domain set (defining what core outcomes should be measured) and a core measurement set (defining measurement/assessment instruments for each core domain). For pressure ulcer prevention trials a COS is lacking. The great heterogeneity of reported outcomes in this field indicates the need for a COS.

METHODS/DESIGN

The first part of this project aims to develop a core domain set by following established methods, which incorporates four steps: (1) definition of the scope, (2) conducting a scoping review, (3) organizing facilitated workshops with service users, (4) performing Delphi surveys and establishing consensus in a face-to-face meeting with different stakeholders.

DISCUSSION

After achieving consensus on the core domain set, further work will be undertaken to determine a corresponding core measurement set. This will lead to better pressure ulcer prevention research in the future. There are a number of methodological challenges in the field of COS development. To meet these challenges and to ensure a high-quality COS, the OUTPUTS project affiliates to current standards and works in close collaboration with international experts and with existing international service user groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The OUTPUTs project is registered in the COMET database: ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/283 ). Registered on 2015.

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults

BACKGROUND

Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the optimal frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing, or both, of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), which does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. Routine scale and polish treatments are typically provided in general dental practice settings. The technique may also be referred to as prophylaxis, professional mechanical plaque removal or periodontal instrumentation.This review updates a version published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health.2. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals for periodontal health.3. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health when the treatment is provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or dental hygienists).

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments, with or without oral hygiene instruction, in healthy dentate adults without severe periodontitis. We excluded split-mouth trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (or standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses. We contacted study authors when necessary to obtain missing information. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 1711 participants in the analyses. Both studies were conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and the other at 36 months. Neither study measured adverse effects, changes in attachment level, tooth loss or halitosis.Comparison 1: routine scaling and polishing versus no scheduled scaling and polishingTwo studies compared planned, regular interval (six- and 12-monthly) scale and polish treatments versus no scheduled treatment. We found little or no difference between groups over a two- to three-year period for gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis when comparing six-monthly scale and polish treatment versus no scheduled treatment was -0.01 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11; two trials, 1087 participants), and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08; two trials, 1091 participants).Regular planned scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over two to three years when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). The SMD for six-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.32 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.20; two trials, 1088 participants) and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.19 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.07; two trials, 1088 participants). The clinical importance of these small reductions is unclear.Participants' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were higher when receiving six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments compared to no scheduled treatment, but the certainty of the evidence is low.Comparison 2: routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervalsTwo studies compared routine six-monthly scale and polish treatments versus 12-monthly treatments. We found little or no difference between groups over two to three years for the outcomes of gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis was 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15; two trials, 1090 participants; I² = 0%). Six- monthly scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over a two- to three-year period when compared with 12-monthly treatments (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; 2 trials, 1086 participants; high-certainty evidence). The clinical importance of this small reduction is unclear.The comparative effects of six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments on patients' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).Comparison 3: routine scaling and polishing provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or hygienists)No studies evaluated this comparison.The review findings in relation to costs were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adults without severe periodontitis who regularly access routine dental care, routine scale and polish treatment makes little or no difference to gingivitis, probing depths and oral health-related quality of life over two to three years follow-up when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference in plaque levels over two years (low-certainty evidence). Routine scaling and polishing reduces calculus levels compared with no routine scaling and polishing, with six-monthly treatments reducing calculus more than 12-monthly treatments over two to three years follow-up (high-certainty evidence), although the clinical importance of these small reductions is uncertain. Available evidence on the costs of the treatments is uncertain. The studies did not assess adverse effects.