engleski

Reply to Letter: Comment on the Paper: How to Intervene in the Caries Process: Early Childhood Caries - A Systematic Review

It is correct that there are many tools for assessment of the primary literature for a systematic review, e.g., the PRISMA checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) which we used. Other tools like AMSTAR 2 are available as well, but retrospective rating of primary references will always include a subjective evaluation process given the nature of heterogenic reporting.Regarding the assessment in the Non- Operative Car-ies Management group containing randomized con-trolled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, a comparable analysis for the risk of bias and quality assessment was complicated due to the extremely heterogenic character of the underlying research publications. Alike the Cochrane foundation, we faced the problem that the available publications were not designed primar- ily to make systematic reviews feasible. Thus, systematic reviews often state that no high level evidence-based con-clusions can be drawn, which does not really suffice if you have to come to decisions in clinics.

Early childhood caries ; Nonoperative Restoration Treatment ; Children ; Review

nije evidentirano