PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand‐alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician–scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision‐making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high‐quality abstracts within Endodontology

Prevalence of endodontic infection in patients with Crohn´s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Previous studies have linked apical periodontitis (AP) to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of AP and root canal treatment (RCT) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn´s disease (CD). A cross-sectional study, including 28 patients with Crohn´s disease and 26 with ulcerative colitis, was conducted. AP was diagnosed as radiolucent periapical lesions (RPLs), using the periapical index score (PAI). Student's t test, 2 test and multivariate logistic regression were used in the statistical analysis. Multivariate logistic regression run with age, gender, number of teeth, number of RFT, periodontal disease and the type of IBD as covariates, taking as dependent variable and outcome "periapical status" (0 = no tooth with RPL; 1 = at least one tooth with RPL), showed that both UC and CD patients had the prevalence apical periodontitis (OR = 1.03; C.I. 95% = 0.25 - 4.31; p = 0.97). The multivariate analysis, including all the above covariates, shows that both in UC and CD patients the prevalence of RCT was similar (OR = 0.76; C.I. 95% = 0.17 - 7.31; p = 0.73). Periapical status was significantly associated with endodontic status (OR = 42.72; C.I. 95% = 3.87 - 472.15; p = 0.002), regardless of IBD type. The results of the present study show similar frequency of AP and RFT in both UC and CD patients. The type of IBD does not appear to affect the prevalence of radiographically detectable periapical lesions or the prevalence of root canal treatment