In recent years, there has been a paradigm shift in the practice of preventive and pediatric dentistry with more emphasis on application of evidence-based research. Although new techniques and materials have been tested in several clinical scenarios in preventive and pediatric dentistry, from a clinician standpoint there has been a dilemma on the right choice of approach to a specific clinical problem. Investigators have attempted to address this issue through basic clinical research, and systematic assessment of the existing literature.
For example, formocresol is considered as the “gold standard” medication for pulpotomy in primary molars as it has been widely tested and shown to be successful. The same applies to the clinical efficacy of preventive medicaments such as silver diamine fluoride. Several randomized controlled trials have been published testing the efficacy with evidence favoring one material over the other, however, systematic reviews on the same topic have found that the quality of evidence of the published trials were low and hence, unable to reach to a clinically sound decision.
It is imperative to improve the quality of scientific evidence by minimizing bias in both designing and reporting of studies. To help in this process, several guidelines, statements and checklist items have been proposed to improve the methodological and reporting quality of scientific reports. Methodological quality refers to designing and execution of research, and reporting quality relates to accurate reporting of items prior to submission for publication. These guidelines have been exclusively developed and validated for different study designs. A strong correlation has been established in the overall quality of the studies that adhered to both methodological and reporting guidelines. Although these guidelines have been widely known, and most of the journals have recommended to adhere to these guidelines, the quality of the published scientific reports remains inadequate.
For transparent and accurate designing and reporting of scientific reports in preventive and pediatric dentistry, it is important to adhere to the existing methodological and reporting guidelines, where available. This will eventually enable appropriate and successful integration of evidence-based research in dental practice.
With the above emphasis, the Editors of this Research Topic welcome submissions on the following content:
• Randomized controlled trials in preventive and pediatric dentistry
• Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in preventive and pediatric dentistry
• Trial sequential analysis (TSA) and network meta-analysis (NMA) in preventive and pediatric dentistry
• Assessment of reporting and methodological quality of studies in preventive and pediatric dentistry
In recent years, there has been a paradigm shift in the practice of preventive and pediatric dentistry with more emphasis on application of evidence-based research. Although new techniques and materials have been tested in several clinical scenarios in preventive and pediatric dentistry, from a clinician standpoint there has been a dilemma on the right choice of approach to a specific clinical problem. Investigators have attempted to address this issue through basic clinical research, and systematic assessment of the existing literature.
For example, formocresol is considered as the “gold standard” medication for pulpotomy in primary molars as it has been widely tested and shown to be successful. The same applies to the clinical efficacy of preventive medicaments such as silver diamine fluoride. Several randomized controlled trials have been published testing the efficacy with evidence favoring one material over the other, however, systematic reviews on the same topic have found that the quality of evidence of the published trials were low and hence, unable to reach to a clinically sound decision.
It is imperative to improve the quality of scientific evidence by minimizing bias in both designing and reporting of studies. To help in this process, several guidelines, statements and checklist items have been proposed to improve the methodological and reporting quality of scientific reports. Methodological quality refers to designing and execution of research, and reporting quality relates to accurate reporting of items prior to submission for publication. These guidelines have been exclusively developed and validated for different study designs. A strong correlation has been established in the overall quality of the studies that adhered to both methodological and reporting guidelines. Although these guidelines have been widely known, and most of the journals have recommended to adhere to these guidelines, the quality of the published scientific reports remains inadequate.
For transparent and accurate designing and reporting of scientific reports in preventive and pediatric dentistry, it is important to adhere to the existing methodological and reporting guidelines, where available. This will eventually enable appropriate and successful integration of evidence-based research in dental practice.
With the above emphasis, the Editors of this Research Topic welcome submissions on the following content:
• Randomized controlled trials in preventive and pediatric dentistry
• Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in preventive and pediatric dentistry
• Trial sequential analysis (TSA) and network meta-analysis (NMA) in preventive and pediatric dentistry
• Assessment of reporting and methodological quality of studies in preventive and pediatric dentistry
