PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: a consensus-based development.

Animal testing is crucial in situations when research on humans is not allowed because of unknown health risks and ethical concerns. The current project aims to develop reporting guidelines exclusively for animal studies in Endodontology, using an established consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named: Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021. Nine individuals (PD, VN, AK, PM, MN, JF, EP, JJ and SJ), including the project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee. The steering committee developed a novel checklist by adapting and integrating their animal testing and peer review experience with the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and also the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) were also formed. Thirty-one PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that were used to formulate the PRIASE guidelines. The novel PRIASE 2021 guidelines were discussed with the POMG on 9 September 2020 via a Zoom online video call attended by 21 individuals from across the globe and seven steering committee members. Following the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript involving research on animals. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are a checklist consisting of 11 domains and 43 individual items together with a flowchart. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are focused on improving the methodological principles, reproducibility and quality of animal studies in order to enhance their reliability as well as repeatability to estimate the effects of endodontic treatments and usefulness for guiding future clinical studies on humans.

PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration.

Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus-based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).

Glossary for randomized clinical trials.

Randomized clinical trials are positioned at the highest level of primary clinical evidence, as they are designed to be unbiased with a reduced risk of systematic error. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first developed in 1996 to improve the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials with updates being published subsequently. Recently, the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for the field of Endodontics to address the suboptimal quality of randomized clinical trials submitted to Endodontic journals, which result in many being rejected. A principal flaw in submissions is the fact that many authors are unclear on the keys terms that should be used when developing manuscripts for publication. Clearly, authors should be aware of the most common terms used when conducting and reporting randomized clinical trials. Hence, the aim of the current paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of the terminology used in randomized clinical trials in order to assist authors when designing, executing and writing-up randomized clinical trials.

Comparing the anaesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks for teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: The scientific literature is contradictory in relation to selecting the appropriate volume of local anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) when attempting to anaesthetize mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs when treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases until May 2020. Randomized clinical trials published in English, comparing 1.8 with 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs in permanent mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis, were included. The risk of bias of the included trials was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The effect of random errors on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Four clinical trials involving 280 teeth from patients with ages ranging from 18 to 65 years were included. Among the four trials, three were categorized as having a 'low' risk of bias and one was categorized as having 'some concerns'. The primary meta-analysis revealed that 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution when administered for IANBs was associated with significantly greater success rates compared with 1.8 mL (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07, 3.52; I2  = 77%). Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (restricting trials only to those that used the Heft-Parker visual analogue pain scale) revealed that the use of 3.6 mL significantly increased the success of IANBs compared with 1.8 mL. The trial sequential analysis confirmed the evidence for the beneficial effect of 3.6 mL to achieve success for IANBs was 'conclusive'. The quality of evidence was graded as 'high'. CONCLUSION: Increasing the volume of anaesthetic solution from 1.8 to 3.6 mL improved the success rate for IANBs in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. The quality of the evidence was 'high'. Future high-quality clinical trials are required with different types of anaesthetic solutions and other types of teeth.

PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: explanation and elaboration.

Well-designed and properly conducted randomized clinical trials provide a true estimate of the effects of interventions and are acknowledged as the gold standard in terms of clinical study design. However, the quality of randomized clinical trials published in the field of Endodontics is suboptimal. The Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for Endodontics by integrating and adapting the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, through an accepted and well-documented consensus process. Full implementation of the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines will minimize potential sources of bias and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication, which will ultimately improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials in Endodontics. The aim of this document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature in order to help authors understand their rationale and significance. A link to this PRIRATE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prirate/.

PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: a consensus-based development.

In evidence-based health care, randomized clinical trials provide the most accurate and reliable information on the effectiveness of an intervention. This project aimed to develop reporting guidelines, exclusively for randomized clinical trials in the dental specialty of Endodontology, using a well-documented, validated consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020. A total of eight individuals (PD, VN, HD, LB, TK, JJ, EP and SP), including the project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee. The committee developed a checklist based on the items in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIRATE Face-to-Face Meeting group (PFMG) were also formed. Thirty PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that make up the PRIRATE guidelines. The guidelines were discussed at a meeting of the PFMG at the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial congress, held on 13 September 2019 in Vienna, Austria. A total of 21 individuals from across the globe and four steering committee members (PD, VN, HD and LB) attended the meeting. As a consequence of the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript. The PRIRATE 2020 guidelines contain a checklist consisting of 11 sections and 58 individual items as well as a flowchart, considered essential for authors to include when writing manuscripts for randomized clinical trials in Endodontics.

PRICE 2020 guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: explanation and elaboration.

Case reports play a key role in showcasing new, unusual or rare disease(s), and the impact of newer therapeutic approaches or interventions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines are being introduced exclusively for Endodontics by adapting and integrating the CAse REport (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles. The PRICE 2020 guidelines have been developed to help authors improve the completeness, accuracy and transparency of case reports in Endodontics and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication. The aim of this document is to provide a comprehensive explanation for each item in the PRICE 2020 checklist along with examples from the literature that demonstrate compliance with these guidelines. This information will highlight the importance of each item and provide practical examples to help authors understand the necessity of providing comprehensive information when preparing case reports. A link to this PRICE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org.

PRICE 2020 guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: a consensus-based development.

Case reports can provide early information about new, unusual or rare disease(s), newer treatment strategies, improved therapeutic benefits and adverse effects of interventions or medications. This paper describes the process that led to the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines through a consensus-based methodology. A steering committee was formed with eight members (PD, VN, BC, PM, PS, EP, JJ and SP), including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and modifying the items from the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRICE Face-to-Face Meeting Group (PFMG) were then formed. The members of the PDG were invited to participate in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the wording and utility of the checklist items and the accompanying flow chart that was created to complement the PRICE 2020 guidelines. The revised PRICE checklist and flow chart developed by the online Delphi process was discussed by the PFMG at a meeting held during the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial Congress in Vienna, Austria, in September 2019. Following the meeting, the steering committee created a final version of the guidelines, which were piloted by several authors during the writing of a case report. In order to help improve the clarity, completeness and quality of case reports in Endodontics, we encourage authors to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines.

Alcohol consumption is associated with periodontitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether alcohol consumption is associated with the risk of periodontitis. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. METHOD: PubMed and Scopus were searched for eligible articles published in English from inception till November 2018. The quality of studies was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the risk of periodontitis associated with highest versus lowest/non-alcohol in a random effects meta-analysis model. Heterogeneity and sensitivity were investigated in meta regression analysis. A funnel plot was used to assess publication bias. RESULTS: Twenty-nine observational studies were included. One study with two separate datasets was considered as two separate studies for analysis. Alcohol consumption was significantly associated with the presence of periodontitis (OR = 1.26, 95% CI= 1.11-1.41). Significant heterogeneity (I2=71%) was present in the overall analysis, primarily attributable to sampling cross-sectional studies (I2=76.6%). A funnel plot and Egger tests (p=0.0001) suggested the presence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: Alcohol consumption was associated with increased occurrence of periodontitis and should be considered as a parameter in periodontal risk assessment. Publication bias should be explored in future studies.

Determinants of periodontitis among a rural Indian population: A case control study.

OBJECTIVES: Identify the determinants of periodontitis in a rural Indian population aged 35-44 years. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Case-control clinical and questionnaire study in a cluster sample of 50 villages. METHODS: A total of 3000 persons were screened for the presence of periodontitis using the CDC case definition in full mouth examination. Equal numbers of cases (604 persons with periodontitis) and controls (604 without periodontitis) were recruited and interviewed with a piloted questionnaire. Univariate and multivariate analysis estimated crude and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) respectively with 95% confidence limits. RESULTS: Six factors were determined by multivariate analysis to predict periodontitis: education less than or equal to twelve years of schooling (aOR=2.51, 95% CI=1.18-5.34), alcohol consumption (aOR= 1.7, 95% CI=1.16-2.49), consuming a non-vegetarian diet (aOR=1.38, 95% CI=1.08-1.76), not drinking milk (aOR=1.7, 95% CI= 1.29-2.24), not using a toothbrush for cleaning of teeth (aOR=2.98, 95% CI =1.71-5.21) and not cleaning teeth at least once a day (aOR=2.13, 95% CI=1.58-2.87). CONCLUSION: Risk factors for periodontitis in a rural Indian population were identified. Further studies should validate these findings and appropriate recommendations should be developed to decrease the prevalence and burden of periodontitis in this population.

Is articaine more effective than lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis? An umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Pain management can be challenging during root canal treatment of teeth with irreversible pulpitis. AIM: To identify whether articaine or lidocaine is the most appropriate local anaesthetic solution for teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment. DATA SOURCE: The protocol of this umbrella review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019137624). PubMed, EBSCHO host and Scopus databases were searched until June 2019. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Systematic reviews published in English comparing the effectiveness of local anaesthesia following administration of articaine or lidocaine in patients undergoing root canal treatment of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis were included. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and carried out the data extraction and the appraisal of the included reviews. Disagreements were resolved in consultation with a third reviewer. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of the included reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers using the AMSTAR tool (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). Each of the 11 AMSTAR items was given a score of 1 if the specific criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews with meta-analyses were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 8 to 11, out of a maximum score of 11, and all reviews were categorized as 'high' quality. Two reviews scored 0 for item 8 in AMSTAR because the scientific quality of the clinical trials included in these reviews was not used in the formulation of the conclusions. LIMITATIONS: Systematic reviews published only in the English language were included. Only a small number of studies were available to assess pain intensity during the injection phase, the time until the onset of anaesthesia and the occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Articaine is more effective than lidocaine for local anaesthesia of teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment. There is limited evidence that injection of articaine is less painful, has more rapid onset and has fewer adverse events compared with lidocaine.

Glossary for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

A systematic review aims to answer a focussed research question through a structured review of the evidence, using a predefined methodology, which often includes a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine the effect estimates from the individual studies included in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are positioned at the highest level in the hierarchy of clinical evidence. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was introduced in 2009 to help authors improve the quality and reliability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Recently, the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of Endodontology has increased; however, the quality of the published manuscripts has been reported to be sub-optimal, which does not take account of the systematic reviews that were rejected because of more obvious deficiencies. The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of terminology commonly used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in an attempt to provide easily understood definitions and explanations to assist authors when reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to allow those wishing to read them to become better informed.

Association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment in adults: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic disorder amongst dental patients. The association between the diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment is unclear. AIM: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment. DATA SOURCE: The protocol of the review was developed and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019141684). Four electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCHOhost, Cochrane and Scopus databases) were used to perform a literature search until July 2019. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses published in English assessing any outcomes of root canal treatment comparing diabetic and nondiabetic patients were included. Two reviewers were involved independently in study selection, data extraction and appraising the reviews that were included. Disagreements were resolved with the help of a third reviewer. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 11 items. Each AMSTAR item was given a score of 1 if the criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear. RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 5 to 7, out of a maximum score of 11, and all the systematic reviews were classified as 'medium' quality. LIMITATIONS: Only two systematic reviews included a meta-analysis. Only systematic reviews published in English were included. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Diabetes mellitus is associated with the outcome of root canal treatment and can be considered as a preoperative prognostic factor.

Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology: a development protocol.

The regulated use of animals in endodontic research is often necessary to investigate the biological mechanisms of endodontic diseases and to measure the preclinical efficacy, biocompatibility, toxicology and safety of new treatments, biomaterials, sealers, drugs, disinfectants, irrigants, devices and instruments. Animal testing is most crucial in situations when research on humans is not ethical, practical or has unknown health risks. Currently, there is a wide variability in the quality of manuscripts that report the results of animal studies. Towards the goal of improving the quality of publications, guidelines for preventing disability, pain, and suffering to animals, and enhanced reporting requirements for animal research have been developed. These guidelines are referred to as Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Henceforth, causing any form of animal suffering for research purposes is not acceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The present report describes a protocol for the development of welfare and reporting guidelines for animal studies conducted in the specialty of Endodontology: the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) guidelines. The PRIASE guidelines will be developed by adapting and modifying the ARRIVE guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The development of the new PRIASE guidelines will include a five-step consensus process. An initial draft of the PRIASE guidelines will be developed by a steering committee. Each item in the draft guidelines will then be evaluated by members of a PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) for its clarity using a dichotomous scale (yes or no) and suitability for its inclusion using a 9-point Likert scale. The online surveys will continue until each item achieves this standard, and a set of items are agreed for further analysis by a PRIASE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG). Following the consensus meeting, the steering committee will finalize and confirm the PRIASE guidelines taking into account the responses and comments of the PFCMG. The PRIASE guidelines will be published and disseminated internationally and updated periodically based on feedback from stakeholders.

Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals.

AIM: To systematically evaluate the reporting quality of the abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to December 2017. Selection of studies by title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment was independently done by two reviewers. The quality of abstracts was assessed by PRISMA-Abstract checklist comprising of 12 items; one each for title and objective, three items for methods, three items for results, two items for discussion and two items for others. PRISMA-A median scores were calculated and compared with the article characteristics. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and multi-variate analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-Abstract score was 7.46 ± 1.19. None of the studies were of high quality (score 10-12), 20 were of moderate (score 7-9), and 4 were of low quality (score 1-6). Journals that adhered to PRISMA guidelines showed significantly higher quality (p < 0.05). No association was found between the quality and the number of authors, country, journals, year of publication, word count and focus of study. CONCLUSION: Majority of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals were of moderate quality. Adoption and adherence to PRISMA-Abstract checklist by the journal editors and authors will enhance the reporting quality of abstracts.

A protocol for developing reporting guidelines for laboratory studies in Endodontology.

Laboratory-based research studies are the most common form of research endeavour and make up the majority of manuscripts that are submitted for publication in the field of Endodontology. The scientific information derived from laboratory studies can be used to design a wide range of subsequent studies and clinical trials and may have translational potential to benefit clinical practice. Unfortunately, the majority of laboratory-based articles submitted for publication fail the peer-review step, because unacceptable flaws or substantial limitations are identified. Even when apparently well-conducted laboratory-based articles are peer-reviewed, they can often require substantial corrections prior to the publication. It is apparent that some authors and reviewers may lack the training and experience to have developed a systematic approach to evaluate the quality of laboratory studies. Occasionally, even accepted manuscripts contain limitations that may compromise interpretation of data. To help authors avoid manuscript rejection and correction pitfalls, and to aid editors/reviewers to evaluate manuscripts systematically, the purpose of this project is to establish and publish quality guidelines for authors to report laboratory studies in the field of Endodontology so that the highest standards are achieved. The new guidelines will be named-'Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology' (PRILE). A steering committee was assembled by the project leads to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The committee will identify new items as well as review and adapt items from existing guidelines. The items forming the draft guidelines will be reviewed and refined by a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG). The items will be evaluated by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PRILE face-to-face consensus meeting group (PFCMG) formed by 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. This will be subject to final approval by the steering committee. The approved PRILE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, presented at congresses/meetings, and be freely available on a dedicated website. Feedback and comments will be solicited from researchers, editors and peer reviewers, who are invited to contact the steering committee with comments to help them update the guidelines periodically.

PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology.

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand-alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician-scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision-making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers, and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high-quality abstracts within Endodontology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) guidelines: a development protocol.

Randomized clinical trials are acknowledged as the most appropriate methodology for demonstrating the efficacy or effectiveness of one intervention as opposed to another and thus play a major role in clinical decision-making. However, it is recognized that despite the existence of various guidelines, for example, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, the quality of manuscripts describing randomized trials is often suboptimal. The current project aims to develop and disseminate new guidelines, Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE), to improve the planning and reporting quality of randomized trials in the field of Endodontics. The project leads (VN, PD) designed a robust process to develop the PRIRATE guidelines. At first, a steering committee of eight members, including the project leads, was formed. Thereafter, a five-stage consensus process will be followed: initial steps, pre-meeting activities, face-to-face consensus meeting, post-meeting activities and post-publication activities. The steering committee will develop the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines by identifying relevant and important items from various sources including the CONSORT guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. This will be followed by the establishment of a PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members. The individual items of the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines developed by the steering committee will be evaluated and scored on a 9-point Likert scale by the PDG members. Items with a score of seven and above by more than 70% of PDG members will be included in the second draft of the guidelines, and the Delphi process will be repeated until each item fulfils the set conditions. After obtaining consensus from the PDG, the PRIRATE guidelines will be discussed by 20 selected individuals within a PRIRATE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG) to arrive at a final consensus. The final PRIRATE guidelines will be accompanied with an explanation and elaboration document developed by the steering committee and approved by six members, three from the PDG and three from the PFCMG. The PRIRATE guidelines will be published in journals and actively disseminated to educational institutions, national and international academic societies and presented at scientific meetings. The steering committee will periodically revise and update the PRIRATE guidelines based on feedback from stakeholders.

Efficacy of local anaesthetic solutions on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

The management of pain during root canal treatment is important. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to identify the anaesthetic solution that would provide the best pulpal anaesthesia for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) were searched to identify studies up to October 2018. Randomized clinical trials comparing at least two anaesthetic solutions (lidocaine (lignocaine), articaine, bupivacaine, prilocaine or mepivacaine) used for IANB for treatment of irreversible pulpitis were included. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Pairwise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis using a random-effects model, and SUCRA ranking were performed. The network meta-analysis estimated the probability of each treatment performing best. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. In total, 11 studies (n = 750) were included in the meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis revealed that only mepivacaine significantly increased the success rate of IANB compared to lidocaine (RR, 1.42 [95% CI 1.04-1.95]). However, no significant differences in the success rate of IANB were observed between mepivacaine and other anaesthetic agents (articaine and bupivacaine). Of all anaesthetic agents, mepivacaine (SUCRA = 0.81) ranked first in increasing the success rate of IANB, followed by prilocaine (SUCRA = 0.62), articaine (SUCRA = 0.54), bupivacaine (SUCRA = 0.41) and lidocaine (SUCRA = 0.13). The overall quality of evidence was very low to moderate. In conclusion, based on the evidence from the randomized clinical trials included in this review, mepivacaine with epinephrine demonstrated the highest probability of providing effective pulpal anaesthesia using IANB for teeth with irreversible pulpitis compared to prilocaine, articaine, bupivacaine and lidocaine. Further, high-quality clinical trials are needed to support the conclusion of this review.