Journal of endodontics · 2023
Prevalence of Fusobacterium Species in Endodontic Infections Detected With Molecular Methods: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Alhadainy Hatem A, Abdel-Karim Amany H, Fouad Ashraf F
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Endodontic infections are polymicrobial; however, investigating the role of bacterial species is critical because they may influence pathogenesis, the development of symptoms, or the persistence of disease. This systematic review aimed to determine the prevalence of Fusobacterium species and its association with different types of endodontic infections.
METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were used as electronic databases to retrieve relevant studies. The studies were evaluated for eligibility criteria, and the certainty in evidence and risk of bias were evaluated using critical appraisal tools for prevalence studies from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Forty studies were selected for meta-analysis and statistically analyzed for the relationship between the prevalence of Fusobacterium species and both the presence of symptoms and the type of infections (primary vs secondary/persistent) using meta-regression analysis.
RESULTS: The prevalence of Fusobacterium spp. in endodontic infections ranged from 3%-100% (mean = 42.51%) in the 40 included studies. Calculated confidence intervals indicated that the presence of Fusobacterium spp. was not statistically associated with the presence of symptoms or with the type of infections (the set of 2 predictors was not significant; P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of Fusobacterium infection, which was identified with molecular methods, was not significant for overall regression using both predictors (ie, symptoms [symptomatic vs asymptomatic] and types of infections [primary vs secondary/persistent]).
METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were used as electronic databases to retrieve relevant studies. The studies were evaluated for eligibility criteria, and the certainty in evidence and risk of bias were evaluated using critical appraisal tools for prevalence studies from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Forty studies were selected for meta-analysis and statistically analyzed for the relationship between the prevalence of Fusobacterium species and both the presence of symptoms and the type of infections (primary vs secondary/persistent) using meta-regression analysis.
RESULTS: The prevalence of Fusobacterium spp. in endodontic infections ranged from 3%-100% (mean = 42.51%) in the 40 included studies. Calculated confidence intervals indicated that the presence of Fusobacterium spp. was not statistically associated with the presence of symptoms or with the type of infections (the set of 2 predictors was not significant; P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of Fusobacterium infection, which was identified with molecular methods, was not significant for overall regression using both predictors (ie, symptoms [symptomatic vs asymptomatic] and types of infections [primary vs secondary/persistent]).