TY  - JOUR
AU  - Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu
AU  - Jakovljević, Aleksandar
AU  - Jaćimović, Jelena
AU  - Duncan, Henry F.
AU  - Jayaraman, Jayakumar
AU  - Dummer, Paul
PY  - 2021
UR  - https://smile.stomf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2580
AB  - Aim
To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of clinical trials published in Endodontics against the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and to analyse the association between the quality of reported trials and a variety of parameters.

Methodology
Fifty randomized clinical trials relating to Endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database from 2015 to 2019 and evaluated by two independent reviewers. For each trial, a score of ‘1’ was awarded when it fully reported each item in the PRIRATE guidelines whereas a score of ‘0’ was awarded when an item was not reported; when the item was reported inadequately a score of ‘0.5’ was awarded. For the items that were not relevant to the trial, ‘Not Applicable (NA)’ was given. Based on the interquartile range of the overall scores received, trials were categorized into ‘Low’ (0–58.4%), ‘Moderate’ (58.5–72.8%) and ‘High’ (72.9–100%) quality. The associations between characteristics and quality of clinical trials were investigated. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and percentage analyses were used to describe the data. To determine the significance of categorical data, the chi‐square test was used. The probability value 0.05 was considered as the level of significance.

Results
Based on the overall scores, 13 (26%), 25(50%) and 12 (24%) of the reports of clinical trials were categorized as ‘High’, ‘Moderate’ and ‘Low’ quality, respectively. Three items (1b, 6d, 11e) were adequately reported in all manuscripts whilst two items (5k, 5m) were scored ‘NA’ in all the reports. The reports published from Europe had a significantly greater percentage of ‘High’‐quality scores, compared to Asia, Middle East, North America and South America (P = 0.0002). The ‘High’‐quality reports were published significantly more often in impact factor journals (P = 0.045). Reports of clinical trials published in journals that adhered to the CONSORT guidelines had significantly more ‘High’ scores compared to those that did not (P = 0.008). Clinical trials with protocols registered a priori had a significantly greater percentage of ‘High’ scores compared to the trials that were not registered in advance (P = 0.003). No significant difference occurred between the quality of clinical trials and the number of authors, journal (Endodontic specialty vs. Non‐Endodontic specialty) or year of publication.

Conclusions
Reports of randomized clinical trials published in the speciality of Endodontics had a substantial number of deficiencies. To create high‐quality reports of clinical trials, authors should comply with the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines.
PB  - Wiley
T2  - International Endodontic Journal
T1  - Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist
DO  - 10.1111/iej.13489
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu and Jakovljević, Aleksandar and Jaćimović, Jelena and Duncan, Henry F. and Jayaraman, Jayakumar and Dummer, Paul",
year = "2021",
abstract = "Aim
To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of clinical trials published in Endodontics against the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and to analyse the association between the quality of reported trials and a variety of parameters.

Methodology
Fifty randomized clinical trials relating to Endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database from 2015 to 2019 and evaluated by two independent reviewers. For each trial, a score of ‘1’ was awarded when it fully reported each item in the PRIRATE guidelines whereas a score of ‘0’ was awarded when an item was not reported; when the item was reported inadequately a score of ‘0.5’ was awarded. For the items that were not relevant to the trial, ‘Not Applicable (NA)’ was given. Based on the interquartile range of the overall scores received, trials were categorized into ‘Low’ (0–58.4%), ‘Moderate’ (58.5–72.8%) and ‘High’ (72.9–100%) quality. The associations between characteristics and quality of clinical trials were investigated. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and percentage analyses were used to describe the data. To determine the significance of categorical data, the chi‐square test was used. The probability value 0.05 was considered as the level of significance.

Results
Based on the overall scores, 13 (26%), 25(50%) and 12 (24%) of the reports of clinical trials were categorized as ‘High’, ‘Moderate’ and ‘Low’ quality, respectively. Three items (1b, 6d, 11e) were adequately reported in all manuscripts whilst two items (5k, 5m) were scored ‘NA’ in all the reports. The reports published from Europe had a significantly greater percentage of ‘High’‐quality scores, compared to Asia, Middle East, North America and South America (P = 0.0002). The ‘High’‐quality reports were published significantly more often in impact factor journals (P = 0.045). Reports of clinical trials published in journals that adhered to the CONSORT guidelines had significantly more ‘High’ scores compared to those that did not (P = 0.008). Clinical trials with protocols registered a priori had a significantly greater percentage of ‘High’ scores compared to the trials that were not registered in advance (P = 0.003). No significant difference occurred between the quality of clinical trials and the number of authors, journal (Endodontic specialty vs. Non‐Endodontic specialty) or year of publication.

Conclusions
Reports of randomized clinical trials published in the speciality of Endodontics had a substantial number of deficiencies. To create high‐quality reports of clinical trials, authors should comply with the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines.",
publisher = "Wiley",
journal = "International Endodontic Journal",
title = "Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist",
doi = "10.1111/iej.13489"
}

Nagendrababu, V., Jakovljević, A., Jaćimović, J., Duncan, H. F., Jayaraman, J.,& Dummer, P.. (2021). Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist. in International Endodontic Journal
Wiley..
https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13489

Nagendrababu V, Jakovljević A, Jaćimović J, Duncan HF, Jayaraman J, Dummer P. Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist. in International Endodontic Journal. 2021;.
doi:10.1111/iej.13489 .

Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu, Jakovljević, Aleksandar, Jaćimović, Jelena, Duncan, Henry F., Jayaraman, Jayakumar, Dummer, Paul, "Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist" in International Endodontic Journal (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13489 . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu
AU  - Kishen, Anil
AU  - Murray, Peter
AU  - Nekoofar, Mohammad Hossein
AU  - de Figueiredo, José Antonio Poli
AU  - Priya, Ekta
AU  - Jayaraman, Jayakumar
AU  - Pulikkotil, Jacob Shaju
AU  - Jakovljević, Aleksandar
AU  - Dummer, Paul
PY  - 2021
UR  - https://smile.stomf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2579
AB  - Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus‐based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride‐endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).
PB  - Wiley
T2  - International Endodontic Journal
T1  - PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration
DO  - 10.1111/iej.13481
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu and Kishen, Anil and Murray, Peter and Nekoofar, Mohammad Hossein and de Figueiredo, José Antonio Poli and Priya, Ekta and Jayaraman, Jayakumar and Pulikkotil, Jacob Shaju and Jakovljević, Aleksandar and Dummer, Paul",
year = "2021",
abstract = "Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus‐based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride‐endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).",
publisher = "Wiley",
journal = "International Endodontic Journal",
title = "PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration",
doi = "10.1111/iej.13481"
}

Nagendrababu, V., Kishen, A., Murray, P., Nekoofar, M. H., de Figueiredo, J. A. P., Priya, E., Jayaraman, J., Pulikkotil, J. S., Jakovljević, A.,& Dummer, P.. (2021). PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration. in International Endodontic Journal
Wiley..
https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13481

Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Murray P, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JAP, Priya E, Jayaraman J, Pulikkotil JS, Jakovljević A, Dummer P. PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration. in International Endodontic Journal. 2021;.
doi:10.1111/iej.13481 .

Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu, Kishen, Anil, Murray, Peter, Nekoofar, Mohammad Hossein, de Figueiredo, José Antonio Poli, Priya, Ekta, Jayaraman, Jayakumar, Pulikkotil, Jacob Shaju, Jakovljević, Aleksandar, Dummer, Paul, "PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration" in International Endodontic Journal (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13481 . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Jaćimović, Jelena
AU  - Jakovljević, Aleksandar
AU  - Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu
AU  - Duncan, Henry F.
AU  - Dummer, Paul
PY  - 2021
UR  - https://smile.stomf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2575
AB  - Objectives
The rapid production of a large volume of literature during the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak created a substantial burden for clinicians and scientists. Therefore, this manuscript aims to identify and describe the scientific literature addressing COVID-19 from a dental research perspective, in terms of the manuscript origin, research domain, study type, and level of evidence (LoE).

Materials and methods
Data were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. A descriptive analysis of bibliographic data, collaboration network, and keyword co-occurrence analysis were performed. Articles were further classified according to the field of interest, main research question, type of study, and LoE.

Results
The present study identified 296 dental scientific COVID-19 original papers, published in 89 journals, and co-authored by 1331 individuals affiliated with 429 institutions from 53 countries. Although 81.4% were single-country papers, extensive collaboration among the institutions of single countries (Italian, British, and Brazilian institutions) was observed. The main research areas were as follows: the potential use of saliva and other oral fluids as promising samples for COVID-19 testing, dental education, and guidelines for the prevention of COVID-19 transmission in dental practice. The majority of articles were narrative reviews, cross-sectional studies, and short communications. The overall LoE in the analyzed dental literature was low, with only two systematic reviews with the highest LoE I.

Conclusion
The dental literature on the COVID-19 pandemic does not provide data relevant to the evidence-based decision-making process. Future studies with a high LoE are essential to gain precise knowledge on COVID-19 infection within the various fields of Dentistry.

Clinical relevance
The published dental literature on COVID-19 consists principally of articles with a low level of scientific evidence which do not provide sufficient reliable high-quality evidence that is essential for decision making in clinical dental practice.
PB  - Springer
T2  - Clinical Oral Investigations
T1  - A bibliometric analysis of the dental scientific literature on COVID-19
DO  - 10.1007/s00784-021-03916-6
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Jaćimović, Jelena and Jakovljević, Aleksandar and Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu and Duncan, Henry F. and Dummer, Paul",
year = "2021",
abstract = "Objectives
The rapid production of a large volume of literature during the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak created a substantial burden for clinicians and scientists. Therefore, this manuscript aims to identify and describe the scientific literature addressing COVID-19 from a dental research perspective, in terms of the manuscript origin, research domain, study type, and level of evidence (LoE).

Materials and methods
Data were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. A descriptive analysis of bibliographic data, collaboration network, and keyword co-occurrence analysis were performed. Articles were further classified according to the field of interest, main research question, type of study, and LoE.

Results
The present study identified 296 dental scientific COVID-19 original papers, published in 89 journals, and co-authored by 1331 individuals affiliated with 429 institutions from 53 countries. Although 81.4% were single-country papers, extensive collaboration among the institutions of single countries (Italian, British, and Brazilian institutions) was observed. The main research areas were as follows: the potential use of saliva and other oral fluids as promising samples for COVID-19 testing, dental education, and guidelines for the prevention of COVID-19 transmission in dental practice. The majority of articles were narrative reviews, cross-sectional studies, and short communications. The overall LoE in the analyzed dental literature was low, with only two systematic reviews with the highest LoE I.

Conclusion
The dental literature on the COVID-19 pandemic does not provide data relevant to the evidence-based decision-making process. Future studies with a high LoE are essential to gain precise knowledge on COVID-19 infection within the various fields of Dentistry.

Clinical relevance
The published dental literature on COVID-19 consists principally of articles with a low level of scientific evidence which do not provide sufficient reliable high-quality evidence that is essential for decision making in clinical dental practice.",
publisher = "Springer",
journal = "Clinical Oral Investigations",
title = "A bibliometric analysis of the dental scientific literature on COVID-19",
doi = "10.1007/s00784-021-03916-6"
}

Jaćimović, J., Jakovljević, A., Nagendrababu, V., Duncan, H. F.,& Dummer, P.. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of the dental scientific literature on COVID-19. in Clinical Oral Investigations
Springer..
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03916-6

Jaćimović J, Jakovljević A, Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Dummer P. A bibliometric analysis of the dental scientific literature on COVID-19. in Clinical Oral Investigations. 2021;.
doi:10.1007/s00784-021-03916-6 .

Jaćimović, Jelena, Jakovljević, Aleksandar, Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu, Duncan, Henry F., Dummer, Paul, "A bibliometric analysis of the dental scientific literature on COVID-19" in Clinical Oral Investigations (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03916-6 . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Jakovljević, Aleksandar
AU  - Duncan, Henry F.
AU  - Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu
AU  - Jaćimović, Jelena
AU  - Milašin, Jelena
AU  - Dummer, Paul
PY  - 2020
UR  - https://smile.stomf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2573
AB  - Background: The existence of an association between cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and apical periodontitis (AP) remains unclear because results obtained from previous clinical studies and reviews are inconsistent or inconclusive.

Objective: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between CVDs and the prevalence of AP in adults.

Methods: The protocol of the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020185753). The literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to May, 2020, with no language restrictions. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that evaluated the association between CVDs and AP were included. Other types of studies, including narrative reviews, were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed a literature search, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Any disagreements or doubts were resolved by a third reviewer. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 16 items. A final categorization of the systematic reviews classified each as of 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'critically low' quality.

Results: Four systematic reviews were included in the current review. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'moderate' quality, whereas one review was graded as 'critically low' quality.

Discussion: Only one systematic review included a meta-analysis. Substantial heterogeneity amongst the primary studies included within each systematic review was notable in preventing a pooled analysis.

Conclusions: From the limited 'moderate' to 'critically low' quality evidence available, the current umbrella review concluded that a weak association exists between CVDs and AP. In the future, well-designed, longitudinal clinical studies with long-term follow-up are required.
PB  - Wiley
T2  - International Endodontic Journal
T1  - Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review
VL  - 53
IS  - 10
SP  - 1374
EP  - 1386
DO  - 10.1111/iej.13364
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Jakovljević, Aleksandar and Duncan, Henry F. and Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu and Jaćimović, Jelena and Milašin, Jelena and Dummer, Paul",
year = "2020",
abstract = "Background: The existence of an association between cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and apical periodontitis (AP) remains unclear because results obtained from previous clinical studies and reviews are inconsistent or inconclusive.

Objective: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between CVDs and the prevalence of AP in adults.

Methods: The protocol of the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020185753). The literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to May, 2020, with no language restrictions. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that evaluated the association between CVDs and AP were included. Other types of studies, including narrative reviews, were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed a literature search, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Any disagreements or doubts were resolved by a third reviewer. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 16 items. A final categorization of the systematic reviews classified each as of 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'critically low' quality.

Results: Four systematic reviews were included in the current review. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'moderate' quality, whereas one review was graded as 'critically low' quality.

Discussion: Only one systematic review included a meta-analysis. Substantial heterogeneity amongst the primary studies included within each systematic review was notable in preventing a pooled analysis.

Conclusions: From the limited 'moderate' to 'critically low' quality evidence available, the current umbrella review concluded that a weak association exists between CVDs and AP. In the future, well-designed, longitudinal clinical studies with long-term follow-up are required.",
publisher = "Wiley",
journal = "International Endodontic Journal",
title = "Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review",
volume = "53",
number = "10",
pages = "1374-1386",
doi = "10.1111/iej.13364"
}

Jakovljević, A., Duncan, H. F., Nagendrababu, V., Jaćimović, J., Milašin, J.,& Dummer, P.. (2020). Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review. in International Endodontic Journal
Wiley., 53(10), 1374-1386.
https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13364

Jakovljević A, Duncan HF, Nagendrababu V, Jaćimović J, Milašin J, Dummer P. Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review. in International Endodontic Journal. 2020;53(10):1374-1386.
doi:10.1111/iej.13364 .

Jakovljević, Aleksandar, Duncan, Henry F., Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu, Jaćimović, Jelena, Milašin, Jelena, Dummer, Paul, "Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review" in International Endodontic Journal, 53, no. 10 (2020):1374-1386,
https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13364 . .