Full text loading...
n Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry - Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review of Chinese trials [protocol]
This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on the 10 July 2012 under registration number CRD42012002621 (Available online from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012002621). This protocol comprises an addition of an existing systematic review report: Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth: a systematic review update - III. J Minim Interv Dent 2012; 5: 273-331 and provides a quantitative systematic review of the Chinese literature to the topic.
Review question : This systematic review seeks to answer the question as to whether, in patients with carious cavities of any class in primary and permanent teeth, ART restorations have a higher failure rate than amalgam restorations placed using conventional rotary instruments in tooth cavities of the same size, type of dentition and followup period?
Systematic literature search : Databases: Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Medical Current Content (CMCC), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, formerly China Academic Journals), VIP Information and WanFang Data; searching of reference lists of included articles.
Search term development : Strings of search terms will be constructed in simplified Chinese. In addition, the English search term "atraumatic restorative treatment" will be used for database search.
Article selection criteria : Clinical trials (trials on animals, in-situ, in-vitro trials not included); Controlled trials: including control- and test group(s) (1-arm longitudinal trials not included); Trial focus relevant to the review question; Prospective trials (retrospective trials not included).
Data extraction : The information extracted from trials will include general trial information, intervention integrity, methodological quality and bias risk; all data with relevance to the review question will be extracted in form of individual dichotomous and continuous datasets.
Data analysis and reporting : A relative point estimate (RR = Risk ratio) will be computed, the results will also be converted into an absolute outcome measure (RD = Risk difference), as well as into an illustrative comparative risk for both, test- and control intervention, and reported accordingly; statistical heterogeneity will be investigated; sensitivity analysis will be applied in order to establish whether all findings are robust to the type of data analysis used; Selection-, detection-, performance-, attrition-, publication- and reporting bias risk in the accepted trials will be assessed; Research gaps within accepted trials in terms of imprecision, inconsistency, lack of right information and shortcomings in bias risk control will be identified using a designated worksheet and subsequently more detailed recommendations for further research will be added to the this systematic review update.
Article metrics loading...