Does a probiotic (L. reuteri) lozenge taken twice daily over 3 to 4 weeks reduce probing pocket depth in patients with chronic periodontitis after 3 months? A systematic review of clinical trials (Preprint)
Mickenautsch, S.; Rupf, S.; Yengopal, V.
Show abstract
IntroductionChronic periodontitis is a slow-progressing, multifactorial inflammatory disease of the periodontium that may lead to its destruction, which is detectable as increasing probing pocket depth (PPD), subsequent tooth mobility and tooth loss. The purpose of this systematic review was to update and appraise the current trial evidence to the question: Does probiotic (L. reuteri) lozenge taken twice daily over 3-4 weeks reduce PPD in patients with chronic periodontitis after 3 months? Methods and analysisReference checks of previous systematic review and trial reports on the topic were conducted. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were searched. All selected trial reports were independently appraised by two reviewers, using the CQS-2B trial appraisal tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effect model with the inverse variance method, stratified according to CQS-2B corroboration levels (C1-C4). The I2-test with 95% confidence interval was used to establish whether any statistical heterogeneity exists between datasets. ResultsSeven trials were included for appraisal and analysis. None complied with all appraisal criteria and thus were rated with an overall 0-score (high bias risk). Meta-analysis results at the lower C3-level (MD -0.64, 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.18) were found as being at risk of overestimating the true probiotic effect. ConclusionThe clinical evidence identified in this systematic review is at high risk of representing an overestimation of the true therapeutic effect due to systematic error. The results of large randomised control trials are needed before any clinically relevant answer to the review question can be made.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Efficacy of Acupuncture on Lower Limb Motor Dysfunction Following Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. 94%
- Effectiveness of aerobic physical exercise on depression symptoms in adults: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials 94%
- A method of back-calculating the log odds ratio and standard error of the log odds ratio from the reported group-level risk of disease 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Which surface treatment improves the long-term repair bond strength of aged methacrylate-based composite resin restorations? A systematic review and network meta-analysis 93%
- Effects of statins on lipid profile of kidney transplant recipients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 88%
- Evaluation of RNA extraction free method for detection of SARS-COV-2 in salivary samples for mass screening for COVID-19 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quality assessment of studies included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews 96%
- Non-pharmacological therapies for post-viral syndromes, including Long COVID: A systematic review 90%
- Artificial Intelligence Applications for COVID-19 in Intensive Care and Emergency Settings: A Systematic Review 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- The effect of calcium supplementation in people under 35 years old: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 91%
- Multicenter preclinical studies as an innovative method to enhance translation: a systematic review of published studies 91%
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
- Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: a meta-research study 94%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.