Assessment of the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence: GRADE checklist. A descriptive study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is a tool for assessing evidence produced in synthesis reports. OBJECTIVES: To present the translation into Portuguese of the GRADE checklist, whose original version is in English, and to describe and explain each topic, in order to provide examples to researchers and professionals who will use the tool. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study developed at Centro Universitário Tiradentes, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil. METHODS: This was a translation of the GRADE checklist, with the addition of the Risk Of Bias In Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool in the checklist, with examples of its use. RESULTS: Situations of practical use of the tool were presented in order to facilitate and expand the use of assessment of the quality and strength of evidence among Portuguese speakers. CONCLUSIONS: The GRADE checklist is valuable in helping to assess the strength and quality of evidence for synthesis reports for healthcare decision-making.

Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the compliance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in posterior restorations with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (CONSORT) statement and to analyze the risk of bias (RoB) of these studies. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS/BBO, and Cochrane Library. Only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals were included. The compliance with the CONSORT was evaluated in a 0-2 scale where 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the CONSORT mean score by journal, country, and RoB were performed. The RoB in RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool version 1.0. RESULTS: A total of 15,476 studies were identified after duplicates removal. O only 202 meet the eligibility criteria, among which 31 were follow-up studies. Concerning the overall RoB, only 29 out of 171 were classified as low risk of bias. The overall mean CONSORT score was 19 ± 5.4 points, which means compliance of approximately 59%. Significant differences among countries, publication period, and RoB were observed (p < 0.001). The journal's impact factor was not correlated with the overall CONSORT score (p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The adherence of RCTs conducted in posterior restorations to the CONSORT Statement is still low. In addition, most studies were classified as at unclear risk of bias. These results call up an urgent need for improvement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Most RCTs conducted in posterior teeth have poor reporting and are mainly classified as having an unclear risk of bias.

Bond strength of selfadhesive flowable resin composites to tooth structure: a systematic review

Aim: To review the current literature regarding the bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites (SAFRCs) to tooth structure, comparing the outcomes with conventional flowable resin composites (CFRCs). Methods: PubMed/Medline, EbscoHost and Scopus databases were screened (last update on November 2020) using related Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free terms. We included in vitro studies published in English language comparing the bond strength of SAFRCs and CFRCs to enamel and/or dentin from primary and/or permanent teeth. Results: In total, 23 articles were included. Unlike CFRCs, SAFRCs such as Vertise® Flow and Fusio™ Liquid Dentin exhibited statistically lower bond strength to enamel and dentin from permanent teeth. There were limited studies comparing the enamel bond strength of CFRCs and SAFRCs (prior phosphoric acid etching and/or adhesive system use). Also, we found few studies that evaluated the bonding effectiveness of Constic® and other SAFRCs to primary teeth. Conclusions: Current SAFRCs showed low bond strength to permanent teeth, which impedes to recommend them as a reliable alternative to CFRCs. The bonding performance of Constic® on both hard dental tissues should be evaluated on future studies. Also, more evidence assessing the bond strength of SAFRCs to primary teeth and etched enamel is needed