Evidence-based dental material selection Flashcards
What “evidence” might you look for (6)
Clinical longevity/ durability Aesthetics Cost-effectiveness Patient acceptability (e.g. comfort) Ease of us/ technique sensitivity Safety (in a specific application)
The evidence base you might consider (6)
RCT Systematic reviews (e.g. Cochrane) Scientific papers International/ national databases Clinical/ senior peers judgement/ opinion Manufacturers marketing materials
Peer reviewed publications - pros and cons (8)
Pros
-peer reviewed - nothing is published without scrutiny
-methods and data must be accurate/ truthful
-generally accessible to healthcare professionals
-generally include sufficient details as to be understandable/ useful
Cons
-quality of peer review may differ between journals
-other sections may contain more opinion that fact - risk of fraud
-public/ GDPs/ team may find key papers are behind a paywall
-any contain extensive technical jargon
How is peer reviewed paper produced? (4)
Authors design and conduct study, and on completion assemble their findings into a manuscript
Submit this to relevant journal where editorial team assign reviewers (others experts in field relevant to subject of manuscript)
Reviewers make comments and recommendation (to accept, modify, or reject)
If/ when accepted, manuscript published as a paper, becoming a permanent record of the research and its findings
Anatomy of a scientific paper
Scientific papers may be published on subjects of relevance to HCPs
Majority focused on ‘discovery; research, and therefore are generally pre-clinical
Clinically relevant data might be present (e.g. F release data, cytotoxicity, mechanical properties etc BUT
Most highly regarded scientific publications deal with experimental materials/ systems AND
Scientific papers based on commercial material data held in lower regard (and may not be as well-reviewed)
First page provides title, authors and affiliations, and usually a short abstract of the whole paper (that may include a graphical abstract)
Content sections may also start on page 1. Here the intro describes the background, context and rationale for research, and may conclude with an aim or hypothesis
Next is generally “Methods” or “Experimental” section
-meant to describe the experimental design and steps, including stats, in sufficient detail to repeat study
Next is “Results”
-provides data generated by experiments in previous section
Next is “Discussion”
-provides author’s considered interpretation of data generated by experiments
Followed by Conclusions
Marketing materials
All leading manufacturers invest in publication of marketing materials (paper and online) to persuade dentists of their merits
while > sales is primary objective, marketing materials from reputable businesses may still be useful
They may signpost key publications including clinical (albeit favourable), and include useful info on correct use e.g. with step-bu-step guides to > likelihood of successful adoption
Unless referenced, not peer reviewed
Confidence substantially reduced
Are these measures clinically relevant? Is clinical data available?