| 13
SANZ et al .
• magnitude of the effects • balance of benefit and harm • ethical, legal, economic considerations • patient preferences
authors. Subsequently, all 15 systematic reviews and the position paper underwent the regular editorial peer review process defined by the Journal of Clinical Periodontology. The guideline text was drafted by the chairs of the working groups, in close cooperation with the methodological consul - tants, and circulated in the guideline group before the workshop. The methodological quality was formally assessed by an outside consultant using the AGREE framework. The guideline was subse - quently peer-reviewed for its publication in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology following the standard evaluation process of this sci - entific journal.
The grading of the quality of evidence and the strength of a rec - ommendation may therefore differ in justified cases.
3.4.3 | Strength of consensus
The consensus determination process followed the recommenda - tions by the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF) and Standing Guidelines Commission (2012). In case, con - sensus could not be reached, different points of view were docu - mented in the guideline text. See Table 5.
3.7 | Implementation and dissemination plan
For this guideline, a multistage dissemination and implementation strategy will be actioned by the EFP, supported by a communication campaign. This will include the following: • Publication of the guideline and the underlying systematic re - views and position paper as an Open Access special issue of the Journal of Clinical Periodontology • Local uptake from national societies, either by Commentary, Adoption, or Adaptation (Schunemann et al., 2017) • Generation of educational material for dental professionals and patients, dissemination via the EFP member societies • Dissemination via educational programmes on dental conferences • Dissemination via EFP through European stakeholders via National Societies, members of EFP • Long-term evaluation of the successful implementation of the guideline by poll of EFP members .
3.5 | Editorial independence
3.5.1 | Funding of the guideline
The development of this guideline and its subsequent publication were financed entirely by internal funds of the European Federation of Periodontology, without any support from industry or other organizations.
3.5.2 | Declaration of interests and management of potential conflicts
All members of the guideline panel declared secondary interests using the standardized form provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (International Committee of Medical Editors). Management of conflict of interests (CoIs) was discussed in the working groups, following the principles provided by the Guidelines International Network (Schunemann et al., 2015). According to these principles, panel members with relevant, potential CoI abstained from voting on guideline statements and recommendations within the consensus process.
The timeline of the guideline development process is detailed in Table 6.
3.8 | Validity and update process
The guideline is valid until 2025. However, the EFP, represented by the members of the Organizing Committee, will continuously assess current developments in the field. In case of major changes of cir - cumstances, for example new relevant evidence, they will trigger an update of the guideline to potentially amend the recommendations. It is planned to update the current guideline regularly on demand in form of a living guideline.
3.6 | Peer review
All 15 systematic reviews, and the position paper on outcome vari - ables commissioned for this guideline, underwent a multistep peer review process. First, the draft documents were evaluated by members of the EFP Workshop Committee and the methodologi - cal consultants using a custom-made appraisal tool to assess (a) the methodological quality of the SRs using the AMSTAR 2 checklist (Shea et al., 2017), and (b) whether all PICO(S) questions were ad - dressed as planned. Detailed feedback was then provided for the SR
4 | PERIODONTAL DIAGNOSIS AND CLASSIFICATION
Periodontal diagnosis has been followed according to the clas - sification scheme defined in the 2017 World Workshop on the
Made with FlippingBook Annual report