Success rates of endodontic treatment in HIV positive (HIV +) and non-HIV patients - a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review assessed the success rates of endodontic treatment in HIV-positive (HIV+) patients. Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020216495), the study addressed whether success rates differ between HIV+ and non-HIV patients. Two reviewers searched Medline-PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Lilacs. Eligibility criteria included studies evaluating primary endodontic treatment success with at least 12 months of follow-up. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and evidence certainty was measured with the GRADE approach. From 252 studies, four case-control studies (282 individuals) met the criteria. Three studies focused on teeth with pulp necrosis and chronic apical periodontitis, while one included pulp necrosis and irreversible pulpitis. The success rate was 89.67% for HIV+ patients and 94.13% for non-HIV patients, with no significant differences between groups. The evidence had a very low certainty level. Findings suggest similar endodontic treatment success rates in HIV+ and non-HIV individuals, but the low certainty of evidence must be considered.Registration number PROSPERO - CRD42020216495
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".