COMMENT
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

What is the methodological quality of published dental implant guidelines?

Data sourcesSix implant dentistry journals with impact factors (2014) assigned by Journal Citation Reports (Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, European Journal of Oral Implants, The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, Journal of Oral Implantology, and Implant Dentistry) and the Medline database.Study selectionTwo reviewers independently selected guidelines published between May 2009 and February 2016.Data evaluationFollowing training four reviewers independently applied the Agree II tool (https://www.agreetrust.org/) to the selected guidelines with disagreements being resolved by discussion. Scores for the six domains of the AGREE II tool were presented as median percentages of the maximum possible with their respective interquartile ranges (IQR). Domain scores were divided into consensus guidelines, and consensus guidelines with systematic reviews.ResultsTwenty-seven consensus guidelines were included, with 19 contributing to the comparisons between groups. Twenty-six guidelines were developed after meetings in Europe, with the European Association of Osseointergration developing the most guidelines (n=9). The number of authors for the guidelines varied from 2-27 (median, 9). For consensus guidelines only domain four scored highest. Guidelines with systematic review scored higher for all domains with the exception of domain five (Table 1).ConclusionsThere is room to improve the quality of consensus guidelines published in highly ranked implant dentistry journals. Clinicians' and researchers' development of consensus guidelines to improve clinical treatment with dental implants is laudable. However, as for primary and secondary research, these guidelines should adhere to high and transparent standards. The AGREE II instrument can be used as a reference for the development of high-quality guidelines to provide unbiased and adequate clinical recommendations to clinicians working with dental implants.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app