IADR Abstract Archives
Corticosteroids for third-molar extractions: An evidence map using LOVE platform
Objectives: Formulating evidence-based recommendations in oral health is challenging. Identifying and synthesizing the evidence to inform these recommendations has become tantalizingly difficult. Answering simple questions such as; should we use corticosteroids for managing postoperative pain when removing third molars, requires an enormous effort.
We aimed to map the evidence available of this question, to illustrate the overlap and shortcomings of the evidence syntheses in this area.
Methods:
We conducted systematic searches in the LOVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for Third Molar, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository maintained through regular searches. Our main search source for systematic reviews (SR) was Epistemonikos database. An additional search was performed on PubMed in order to identify RCTs not included in reviews.
We included SR of corticosteroids (injected, v.o.,or any other measure of administration) versus no treatment or placebo for patients undergoing third molar extractions. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies. Searches had no language restrictions and covered the period until July, 2021.
We built a matrix of evidence using Epistemonikos to compare the studies included in the reviews. A matrix of evidence is a table displaying all the RSs answering a question, and all the studies answering the question of interest included in these reviews.
Results: We identified 20 systematic reviews including 79 RCTs overall answering the question of interest. The number of primary studies identified by each particular review ranged from 1 to 25. Our search in LOVE found 28 RCTs eligible that were not identified by any of the reviews.
Conclusions: None of the SRs included the totality of RCTs, which may be partly explained by serious limitations on the quality of the reviews and the search date. This also highlights how fast published reviews become obsolete if they are not continuously updated.
SRs are considered the gold standard to make sense of multiple trials addressing a similar scientific question, but the traditional model for conducting reviews has several limitations so alternative models are needed.
We aimed to map the evidence available of this question, to illustrate the overlap and shortcomings of the evidence syntheses in this area.
Methods:
We conducted systematic searches in the LOVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for Third Molar, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository maintained through regular searches. Our main search source for systematic reviews (SR) was Epistemonikos database. An additional search was performed on PubMed in order to identify RCTs not included in reviews.
We included SR of corticosteroids (injected, v.o.,or any other measure of administration) versus no treatment or placebo for patients undergoing third molar extractions. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies. Searches had no language restrictions and covered the period until July, 2021.
We built a matrix of evidence using Epistemonikos to compare the studies included in the reviews. A matrix of evidence is a table displaying all the RSs answering a question, and all the studies answering the question of interest included in these reviews.
Results: We identified 20 systematic reviews including 79 RCTs overall answering the question of interest. The number of primary studies identified by each particular review ranged from 1 to 25. Our search in LOVE found 28 RCTs eligible that were not identified by any of the reviews.
Conclusions: None of the SRs included the totality of RCTs, which may be partly explained by serious limitations on the quality of the reviews and the search date. This also highlights how fast published reviews become obsolete if they are not continuously updated.
SRs are considered the gold standard to make sense of multiple trials addressing a similar scientific question, but the traditional model for conducting reviews has several limitations so alternative models are needed.
3629040_File000000.jpg