What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

Abstract Background This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas. Main body We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area. Conclusion Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider. </jats:sec

Efficacy of electronic apex locators in comparison with intraoral radiographs in working length determination- a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Successful endodontic treatment needs accurate determination of working length (WL). Electronic apex locators (EALs) were presented as an alternative to radiographic methods; and since then, they have evolved and gained popularity in the determination of WL. However, there is insufficient evidence on the post-operative pain, adequacy, and accuracy of EALs in determining WL. OBJECTIVE: The systematic review and meta-analysis aims to gather evidence regarding the effectiveness of EALs for WL determination when compared to different imaging techniques along with postoperative pain associated with WL determination, the number of radiographs taken during the procedure, the time taken, and the adverse effects. METHODS: For the review, clinical studies with cross-over and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in seven electronic databases, followed by cross-referencing of the selected studies and related research synthesis. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was carried out with Cochrane's RoB tool and a random-effects model was used. The meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan software 5.4.1. RESULTS: Eleven eligible RCTs were incorporated into the review and eight RCTs into the meta-analysis, of which five had high RoB and the remaining six had unclear RoB. Following meta-analysis, no significant difference in postoperative pain was found among the EAL and radiograph groups (SMD 0.00, CI .29 to .28, 354 participants; P value = 0.98). Radiograph group showed better WL accuracy (SMD 0.55, CI .11 to .99, 254 participants; P value = 0.02), while the EAL group had 10% better WL adequacy (RR 1.10, CI 1.03-1.18, 573 participants; P value = 0.006). CONCLUSION: We found very low-certainty evidence to support the efficacy of different types of EAL compared to radiography for the outcomes tested. We were unable to reach any conclusions about the superiority of any type of EAL. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardizing the outcomes and outcome measurement methods

Are Survival Outcomes Different for Young and Old Patients with Oral and Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to address whether age can be a determinant of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence, distant metastasis (DM) and second primary (SP) in surgically treated oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OOPSCC). A total of 4981 cases and 44254 controls from 25 comparative observational studies were included in the analysis. A significantly better OS (matched subgroup analysis: OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.31–2.04, overall analysis: OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.09–2.01) was observed in young patients compared to older adults, with heterogeneity ranging from moderate to severe. Worse DFS (unmatched subgroup analysis OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.27–0.68) was observed in young patients compared to older adults with minimal to moderate heterogeneity. The frequency of recurrence (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.10–2.02) and DM (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.10–3.03) was significantly higher in the young patients, as found in unmatched and matched subgroup analysis, with the least heterogeneities. Young age can be considered as an independent prognostic factor for recurrence and distant metastases in OOP-SCC. Larger and methodologically robust observational studies with longer follow-up are needed to establish the definitive role of age as an independent prognostic factor on OS and DFS in OOPSCC.</jats:p