Development of a Core Outcome Set in Endodontics (COS-ENDO): Part 3 – COS-ENDO for Studies of Surgical Endodontics in Permanent Teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Methodological heterogeneity and reporting bias complicate interpreting endodontic outcomes. Supported by the American Association of Endodontists and its Foundation, this study developed the Core Outcome Set in Endodontics (COS-ENDO) to standardize reporting for studies of nonsurgical root canal treatment/retreatment, surgical endodontics, vital pulp therapy, apexification, and regenerative endodontics. This article, part 3 of a 5-part series, focuses on COS-ENDO for surgical endodontics, while other parts address the remaining treatments. METHODS: Outcomes were identified through a scoping review, a qualitative study with patients, and a web-based survey of American Association of Endodontists practicing members. In a 2-round Delphi survey, clinicians, patients, and researchers rated outcomes on a 9-point scale. Ratings were assessed against consensus criteria, and a virtual meeting finalized COS-ENDO. RESULTS: Of the 97 invited participants to round 1, 77 registered, and 73 (24 academicians/researchers, 26 clinicians, and 23 patients or their parents/caregivers) assessed 46 outcomes, with 17 excluded. The remaining outcomes-7 achieving consensus for inclusion and 22 lacking consensus-advanced to round 2 for rerating by 70 participants. This resulted in 1 outcome achieving consensus for exclusion, 10 for inclusion, and 18 lacking consensus. In the final meeting, 16 participants finalized the COS-ENDO for surgical endodontics, including Tooth survival, Pain, Signs of infection, Radiographic evidence of periradicular healing, Success, Functional tooth, Need for further intervention, and Adverse events/Complications. CONCLUSIONS: COS-ENDO is an important step in standardizing outcome reporting in endodontics, ensuring consistent reporting and enhancing research utility. Further efforts are needed to establish optimal measurement methods.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".