Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements for antenatal oral healthcare: An assessment of their methodological quality and content of recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the content of recommendations within antenatal oral healthcare guidance documents and appraise the quality of their methodology to inform areas of development, clinical practice, and research focus. METHOD: A systematic search of five electronic databases, Google search engine, and databases from relevant professional and guideline development groups published in English, developed countries, and between 2010 and 2020 was undertaken to identify guidance documents related to antenatal oral healthcare. Quality of documents was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool, and a 3-step quality cut-off value was used. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to categories discreet recommendations into themes. RESULTS: Six guidelines and one consensus statement were analysed. Two documents developed within Australia scored ≥60% across five of the six domains of the quality appraisal tool and were recommended for use. Four documents (developed in the United States and Canada) were recommended for use with modifications, whilst one document (developed in Europe) was not recommended. A total of 98 discreet recommendations were identified and demonstrated considerable unanimity but differed in scope and level of information. The main content and number of recommendations were inductively categorised within the following clinical practice points: risk factor assessments (n = 2), screening and assessment (n = 10), pre-pregnancy care (referral, n = 1), antenatal care (health education and advice, n = 14; management of nausea and vomiting, n = 7; referral, n = 2), postnatal care (health education and advice, n = 1; anticipatory guidance, n = 6), documentation (n = 4), coordinated care (n = 4), capacity building (n = 6), and community engagement (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The methodological rigour of included guidance documents revealed areas of strengths and limitations and posit areas for improvement. Further research could centre on adapting antenatal oral healthcare guidelines and consensus statements to local contexts. More high-quality studies examining interventions within antenatal oral healthcare are needed to support the development of recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".