Abstract
BackgroundConsensus guidelines are useful to improve clinical decision making. Therefore, the methodological evaluation of these guidelines is of paramount importance. Low quality information may guide to inadequate or harmful clinical decisions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of consensus guidelines published in implant dentistry using a validated methodological instrument.MethodsThe six implant dentistry journals with impact factors were scrutinised for consensus guidelines related to implant dentistry. Two assessors independently selected consensus guidelines, and four assessors independently evaluated their methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Disagreements in the selection and evaluation of guidelines were resolved by consensus. First, the consensus guidelines were analysed alone. Then, systematic reviews conducted to support the guidelines were included in the analysis. Non-parametric statistics for dependent variables (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was used to compare both groups.ResultsOf 258 initially retrieved articles, 27 consensus guidelines were selected. Median scores in four domains (applicability, rigour of development, stakeholder involvement, and editorial independence), expressed as percentages of maximum possible domain scores, were below 50% (median, 26%, 30.70%, 41.70%, and 41.70%, respectively). The consensus guidelines and consensus guidelines + systematic reviews data sets could be compared for 19 guidelines, and the results showed significant improvements in all domain scores (p < 0.05).ConclusionsMethodological improvement of consensus guidelines published in major implant dentistry journals is needed. The findings of the present study may help researchers to better develop consensus guidelines in implant dentistry, which will improve the quality and trust of information needed to make proper clinical decisions.
Highlights
Consensus guidelines are important tools that help clinicians make appropriate decisions in the treatment of their patients
The six implant dentistry journals with impact factors were scrutinised for consensus guidelines related to implant dentistry
The consensus guidelines and consensus guidelines + systematic reviews data sets could be compared for 19 guidelines, and the results showed significant improvements in all domain scores (p < 0.05)
Summary
Consensus guidelines are important tools that help clinicians make appropriate decisions in the treatment of their patients The developers of these guidelines suggest recommendations for clinical practice based on the best available evidence from, for example, well-conducted systematic reviews [1]. Consensus guidelines aim to promote better clinical treatment based on the weighing of potential benefits and harms, resources available, patients’ preferences, and scientific evidence [2]. To reach this goal, guidelines should be developed at the highest methodological level possible. Guidelines should be developed at the highest methodological level possible Those based on low-quality, biased methodologies will likely guide clinicians to make ineffective and potentially harmful clinical decisions.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
