La Radiologia medica · 2020
Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline.
СтатьяКлинические рекомендацииНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kapetanović Aldin, Oosterkamp Barbara C M, Lamberts Antoon A, Schols Jan G J H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Radiographs are considered essential in orthodontics. However, their diagnostic value and indications for use are still uncertain, while exposure to radiation carries health risks. This study aimed to report on the development of a clinical practice guideline on orthodontic radiology.
METHODS: A Guideline Development Taskforce was set up. The GRADE methodology was used for development and the RIGHT Statement for reporting of the guideline. We systematically reviewed articles to address the main clinical question: how different types of radiographs contribute to orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and post-treatment outcome evaluation. After a literature search and data extraction, we formulated conclusions and assessed the strength of the evidence according to the GRADE method. Both literature conclusions and the most important considerations, such as patient preferences, organizational matters and expert opinions were taken into account to finally issue recommendations.
RESULTS: 7 clinical questions focused on orthopantomograms, lateral cephalograms, hand-wrist radiographs, peri-apical radiographs, bitewings, antero-occlusal radiographs, and cone-beam computer tomographic imaging. The literature search lead to 484 unique studies, of which 17 were included in the analysis. The strength of evidence of the conclusions was graded low or very low. We formulated considerations and took them into account when issuing the 13 clinical recommendations to address the clinical questions.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a considerable lack of scientific evidence on this topic. Nonetheless, this guideline provides clinicians with a tool for decision-making regarding radiographic records while enhancing patient radiation protection. More research of higher quality is recommended for a future update.
METHODS: A Guideline Development Taskforce was set up. The GRADE methodology was used for development and the RIGHT Statement for reporting of the guideline. We systematically reviewed articles to address the main clinical question: how different types of radiographs contribute to orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and post-treatment outcome evaluation. After a literature search and data extraction, we formulated conclusions and assessed the strength of the evidence according to the GRADE method. Both literature conclusions and the most important considerations, such as patient preferences, organizational matters and expert opinions were taken into account to finally issue recommendations.
RESULTS: 7 clinical questions focused on orthopantomograms, lateral cephalograms, hand-wrist radiographs, peri-apical radiographs, bitewings, antero-occlusal radiographs, and cone-beam computer tomographic imaging. The literature search lead to 484 unique studies, of which 17 were included in the analysis. The strength of evidence of the conclusions was graded low or very low. We formulated considerations and took them into account when issuing the 13 clinical recommendations to address the clinical questions.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a considerable lack of scientific evidence on this topic. Nonetheless, this guideline provides clinicians with a tool for decision-making regarding radiographic records while enhancing patient radiation protection. More research of higher quality is recommended for a future update.