The association between apical periodontitis and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The association between adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) and maternal apical periodontitis remains unclear as it has not been examined rigorously or reviewed systematically. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and critically evaluate the available evidence on the association of maternal apical periodontitis with several APOs. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), from inception to 25 February 2021, with no language restrictions. Observational studies including longitudinal clinical trials, cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies of prospective and retrospective design were included. Articles with duplicate or overlapping results, abstract-only papers, case reports, case series, animal studies and reviews were excluded. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data extraction and appraising the included studies; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the adapted form of the NOS were used to assess the quality for case-control and cross-sectional studies, respectively. RESULTS: Two case-control and one cross-sectional study were included in the current review. The included studies were published between 2015 and 2017, with a total of 1187 participating individuals with an approximate age range of 15 to 40 years. As the included studies reported different outcomes, the heterogeneity of data prevented a meta-analysis being undertaken. The overall quality of the evidence was 'Fair' for two out of three included studies, while one study was categorized as 'Good'. DISCUSSION: Two out of three included primary studies had a substantial number of methodological inconsistencies and flaws, and therefore caution should be exercised in interpreting the results of this systematic review because several important covariates were not considered in the original investigations. CONCLUSION: Based on a limited volume and 'Fair' and 'Good' quality of evidence, a positive association between maternal apical periodontitis and APOs was observed. However, more 'Good' quality clinical studies are needed to confirm the results of the current review. FUNDING: None REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42-2191987).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,052 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,013 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».