MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386175659 · doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2023.06.014

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in children

2023· review· en· W4386175659 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alonso Carrasco‐Labra, Deborah E. Polk, Olivia Urquhart, Tara Aghaloo, J. William Claytor, Vineet Dhar, Raymond A. Dionne, Lorena Espinoza, Sharon M. Gordon, Elliot V. Hersh, Alan Law, Brian Li, Paul J. Schwartz, Katie J. Suda, Michael A. Turturro, Marjorie L. Wright, Tim Dawson, Anna Miroshnychenko, Sarah Pahlke, Lauren Pilcher, Michelle Shirey, Malavika P. Tampi, Paul A. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the American Dental Association · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of PennsylvaniaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionSchool of Dentistry, University of MarylandUniversity of ConnecticutUniversity of Pennsylvania Health SystemMcMaster UniversitySchool of Dental Medicine, University of PittsburghUniversity of PittsburghNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionAlzheimer's AssociationPrinceton UniversityUniversity of California, Los AngelesU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationUniversity of MinnesotaSoochow UniversityVA Pittsburgh Healthcare SystemA.T. Still University
KeywordsMedicineToothacheGuidelineAcetaminophenAcute painGrading (engineering)IbuprofenAnalgesicIntensive care medicineOral medicineDentistryNonsteroidalAnesthesiaInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs, American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after 1 or more simple and surgical tooth extractions and the temporary management of toothache (that is, when definitive dental treatment not immediately available) associated with pulp and furcation or periapical diseases in children (< 12 years). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of analgesics and corticosteroids in managing acute dental pain. They used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated 7 recommendations and 5 good practice statements across conditions. There is a small beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen compared with not providing analgesic therapy. There is no available evidence regarding the effect of corticosteroids on acute pain after surgical tooth extractions in children. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nonopioid medications, specifically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen and naproxen alone or in combination with acetaminophen, are recommended for managing acute dental pain after 1 or more tooth extractions (that is, simple and surgical) and the temporary management of toothache in children (conditional recommendation, very low certainty). According to the US Food and Drug Administration, the use of codeine and tramadol in children for managing acute pain is contraindicated.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.012
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0110.004
Research integrity0.0120.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the American Dental AssociationSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207