RESUMO
Objectives: Selective caries removal aims to remove carious tissue in deep dentin lesions. However, a discussion stands on the value of antiseptics and chemomechanical adjuvant methods to reduce the bacterial load on residual caries lesions. This systematic review has addressed two main clinical questions to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of available methods using (1) antiseptic or (2) chemomechanical agents before restoring dentin carious lesions. Methods: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs/ NRCTs). We searched eight databases from inception to October 2021. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was the reduction in the number of total bacterial in dentin, whereas secondary outcomes were reduction in the number of Lactobacillus and Streptococcus. We used the ratio of ratio of post-treatment to baseline means between two interventions in the logarithmic scale as a proper effect measure. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: We included 14 RCTs and 9 NRCTs, with nine interventions. Regardless the method, the number of bacteria at baseline was similar or exceeded that after the intervention, particularly in NRCTs. The evidence was inconclusive for most comparisons. Among antiseptic agents, chlorhexidine (CHX) resulted in an average of 1.14 times [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.21] more total bacterial than photodynamic therapy in RCTs. Among NRCTS, the natural agents resulted in five times more total bacterial than CHX (95% CI: 2-11). For chemomechanical methods, the control resulted in eight times (95% CI: 4-17) more total bacterial than Carisolv (SHAA). Conclusions: The certainty of the evidence was very low for all comparisons showing uncertainty whether one treatment could be more effective than another for dentin disinfection. So far, exclusively removing soft carious dentin would be enough to reduce the bacterial count.
RESUMO
Systematic reviews with meta-analyses are powerful tools that can answer research questions based on data from published studies. Ideally, all relevant data is directly available in the text or tables, but often it is only presented in graphs. In those cases, the data can be extracted from graphs, but this potentially introduces errors. Here, we investigate to what extent the extracted outcome and error values differ from the original data and if these differences could affect the results of a meta-analysis. Six extractors extracted 36 outcome values and corresponding errors from 22 articles. Differences between extractors were compared using overall concordance correlation coefficients (OCCC), differences between the original and extracted data were compared using concordance correlation coefficients (CCC). To test the possible influence on meta-analyses, random-effects meta-analyses on mean difference comparing original and extracted data were performed. The OCCCs and CCCs were high for both outcome values and errors, CCCs were >0.99 for the outcome and >0.92 for errors. The meta-analyses showed that the overall effect on outcome was very small (median: 0.025, interquartile range: 0.016-0.046). Therefore, data extraction from graphs is a good method to harvest data if it is not provided in the text or tables, and the original authors cannot provide the data.
Assuntos
Experimentação Animal , Animais , Publicações , Projetos de PesquisaRESUMO
IMPORTANCE: There is debate about the effectiveness of psychiatric treatments and whether pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy should be primarily used. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic overview on the efficacy of pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies for major psychiatric disorders and to compare the quality of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library (April 2012, with no time or language limit) for systematic reviews on pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy vs placebo, pharmacotherapy vs psychotherapy, and their combination vs either modality alone. Two reviewers independently selected the meta-analyses and extracted efficacy effect sizes. We assessed the quality of the individual trials included in the pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy meta-analyses with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. FINDINGS: The search yielded 45,233 results. We included 61 meta-analyses on 21 psychiatric disorders, which contained 852 individual trials and 137,126 participants. The mean effect size of the meta-analyses was medium (mean, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.59). Effect sizes of psychotherapies vs placebo tended to be higher than those of medication, but direct comparisons, albeit usually based on few trials, did not reveal consistent differences. Individual pharmacotherapy trials were more likely to have large sample sizes, blinding, control groups, and intention-to-treat analyses. In contrast, psychotherapy trials had lower dropout rates and provided follow-up data. In psychotherapy studies, wait-list designs showed larger effects than did comparisons with placebo. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Many pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies are effective, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Because of the multiple differences in the methods used in pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy trials, indirect comparisons of their effect sizes compared with placebo or no treatment are problematic. Well-designed direct comparisons, which are scarce, need public funding. Because patients often benefit from both forms of therapy, research should also focus on how both modalities can be best combined to maximize synergy rather than debate the use of one treatment over the other.
