An international consensus study to identify “what” outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for endodontic treatments (COSET) for utilization in clinical practice and research

Background Development of a standardized set of topic‐specific outcomes known as a Core Outcome Set (COS) is important to address issues of heterogeneity in reporting research findings in order to streamline evidence synthesis and clinical decision making. Aim The aim of the current international co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International endodontic journal 2024-03, Vol.57 (3), p.270-280
Hauptverfasser: El Karim, Ikhlas, Duncan, Henry Fergus, Cushley, Siobhan, Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu, Kirkevang, Lise‐Lotte, Kruse, Casper Lemvig, Chong, Bun San, Shah, Pratik Kamalkant, Lappin, Mark, Lundy, Fionnuala T., Clarke, Mike, Abbott, P., Abushouk, S., Aggarwal, V., Ahmed, H. M. A., Al Nuaimi, N., Aminoshariae, A., Arias, A., Awawdeh, L., Ballal, V., Bill, K., Chugal, N., Chevalier, V., Schafer, E., Jamal, M., Lewis, K., Longridge, N., Okamoto, M., Sunde, P. T., Pigg, M., Rossi‐Fedel, G., Sanhouri, N., Taha, N., Tomson, P. L., Widbiller, M., Yu, V.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Development of a standardized set of topic‐specific outcomes known as a Core Outcome Set (COS) is important to address issues of heterogeneity in reporting research findings in order to streamline evidence synthesis and clinical decision making. Aim The aim of the current international consensus study is to identify “what” outcomes to include in the Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatments (COSET). Outcomes of various endodontic treatments (non‐surgical root canal treatment, surgical endodontics, vital pulp treatment and revitalization procedures) performed on permanent teeth were considered. Methods A standard validated methodology for COS development and reporting was adopted. The process involved identification of existing outcomes through four published scoping reviews. This enabled creation of a list of outcomes to be prioritized via semi‐structured patient interviews, e‐Delphi process and a consensus meeting with a range of relevant global stakeholders. Outcomes were prioritized using a 1–9 Likert scale, with outcomes rated 7–9 considered critical, 4–6 are important and 1–3 are less important. Outcomes rated 7–9 by ≥70% and 1–3 by
ISSN:0143-2885
1365-2591
1365-2591
DOI:10.1111/iej.14008