Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on revitalization: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set
Background Revitalization is a type of regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) that offers the exciting prospect of revitalizing damaged tissue, therefore improving outcomes for non‐vital immature teeth. To evaluate its potential, there needs to be consistency in outcome reporting of clinical studie...
Saved in:
| Published in: | International endodontic journal Vol. 55; no. 12; pp. 1317 - 1334 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
England
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
01-12-2022
John Wiley and Sons Inc |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background
Revitalization is a type of regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) that offers the exciting prospect of revitalizing damaged tissue, therefore improving outcomes for non‐vital immature teeth. To evaluate its potential, there needs to be consistency in outcome reporting of clinical studies investigating revitalization to allow for evidence synthesis and inform clinical decision making.
Objectives
The aim of this scoping review was to identify outcomes that are reported in systematic reviews on revitalization including how and when these outcomes are measured. Additionally, evidence of selective reporting bias in the reviews was assessed.
Methods
A comprehensive electronic search of healthcare databases and grey literature was conducted to identify systematic reviews published in the English language reporting outcomes of revitalization in permanent immature teeth. There was no restriction on the date of publication. Outcome data was extracted by four reviewers independently and mapped with a healthcare taxonomy into five core areas: survival, clinical/physiological changes, life impact, resource use and adverse events. Selective reporting bias and how it was measured was assessed independently by two reviewers.
Results
Twenty‐six systematic reviews were included in this scoping review. There was lack of standardization in reporting and significant heterogeneity across reviews in outcome endpoints. The outcomes reported could be aligned within the five core areas of the taxonomy including tooth survival which was reported in nine reviews. Patient‐reported outcomes were generally limited and no review reported on Oral Health Related Quality of Life. Many of the reviews reporting on randomized control trials were at low risk of selective reporting bias whilst other study designs were at higher risk.
Discussion
Consistency in outcome reporting is necessary to realize the benefits of old but particularly novel therapies. Data from this review confirmed heterogeneity in reporting outcomes of revitalization and the need for development of a core outcome set (COS).
Conclusions
Several important outcomes including survival, root development, tooth discolouration and periapical healing have been identified in this review which could inform the development of a COS in this area.
Registration
Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database (registration no. 1879). |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Review-1 |
| ISSN: | 0143-2885 1365-2591 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/iej.13829 |