8 |
SANZ et al .
TABLE 1B Key stakeholders contacted and participants
Acronym Answer a
Institution
Representative
Association for Dental Education in Europe
ADEE
No answer No
representative
Council of European Chief Dental Officers
CECDO Participant Ken Eaton/
Paula Vassallo
Council of European Dentists Paulo Melo European Association of Dental Public Health EADPH Participant Paula Vassallo European Dental Hygienists Federation EDHF Participant Ellen Bol-van den Hil European Dental Students' Association EDSA Participant Daniella Timus European Federation of Conservative Dentistry EFCD Participant Laura Ceballos European Orthodontic Society EOS No answer No representative European Prosthodontic Association EPA Participant Phophi Kamposiora European Society of Endodontology ESE Participant Lise Lotte Kirkevang Platform for Better Oral Health in Europe PBOHE Participant Kenneth Eaton a Messages sent 20 March 2019; reminder sent June 18. CED Participant
3.2.4 | Relevance of outcomes
-trials). For observational studies, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford. asp.
A narrative review paper was commissioned for this guideline (Loos & Needleman, 2020) to evaluate the possible outcome measures uti - lized to evaluate the efficacy of periodontal therapy in relation to true patient-centred outcomes like tooth retention/loss. The authors found that the commonly reported outcome variable with the best demonstrated predictive potential for tooth loss was the reduction in periodontal probing pocket depth (PPD). Therefore, for this guide - line, PPD reduction was used as primary outcome for those system - atic reviews not addressing periodontal regeneration, and where tooth survival data were not reported. When reviewing regenerative interventions, gains in clinical attachment were used as the primary outcome measure. To avoid introducing bias by including possibly spurious findings of studies with very short follow-up, a minimal follow-up period of six months was requested for all reviews.
3.2.7 | Data synthesis
Where applicable, the available evidence was summarized by means of meta-analysis, or other tools aimed for pooling data (network meta-analysis, Bayesian network meta-analysis).
3.3 | From evidence to recommendation: structured consensus process
The structured consensus development conference was held during the XVI European Workshop in Periodontology in La Granja de San Ildefonso Segovia, Spain, on 10–13 November 2019. Using the 15 SRs as background information, evidence-based recommendations were formally debated by the guideline panel using the format of a structured consensus development conference, consisting of small group discussions and open plenary were the proposed recom - mendations were presented, voted and adopted by consensus and Murphy et al. (1998). In the small group phase, delegates convened in four work - ing groups addressing the following subtopics: (a) “periodontitis stages I and II”; (b) “periodontitis Stage III”; (c) “periodontitis Stage III with intraosseous defects and/or furcations”; and (d) “support - ive periodontal care.” These working groups were directed by two chairpersons belonging to the EFP Workshop Committee. With the support of an expert in methodology in each working group, recommendations and draft background texts were generated
3.2.5 | Search strategy
All SRs utilized a comprehensive search strategy of at least two dif - ferent databases, supplemented by a hand search of periodontal journals and the reference lists of included studies. In all SRs, the electronic and manual search, as well as the data extraction, was done in parallel by two different investigators.
3.2.6 | Quality assessment of included studies
In all SRs, the risk of bias of controlled clinical trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (https://methods.cochrane.org/ bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized
Made with FlippingBook Annual report