Teledentistry for improving access to, and quality of oral health care: A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Kengne Talla, P.; Allison, P.; Bussieres, A.; Giraudeau, N.; Komarova, S.; Basiren, Q.; Bergeron, F.; Emami, E.
Show abstract
Digital technologies are becoming essential to address and optimize the suboptimal performance of healthcare systems. Teledentistry involves the use of information and communication technology to improve access to oral health care and the quality of oral health care delivery. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of teledentistry but with conflicting results. The aim of this review is to comprehensively summarize available SRs and provide evidence on the impact of teledentistry on access to oral care, patients and oral healthcare providers outcomes, quality of oral health care and costs. This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022373964). Six electronic databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Embase.com), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos will be searched for SRs of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed reviews evaluating teledentistry modalities involving both patients and/or oral health care providers (OHCPs). We will include only studies published in English or French. The primary outcomes will be considered from the patients perspective (e.g., access to oral health care, patient-reported outcomes, and experiences). The secondary outcomes will include outcomes from patients and OHCPs (e.g., clinical outcomes, safety, behaviors, and costs). Two independent reviewers will perform data screening, data extraction and will assess the quality of included studies using the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. Data will be synthesized narratively and presented by tables and graphs. We will report any overlap of primary studies in the SRs. A statement on the strength of evidence for each outcome will be provided if possible. This review will inform decision-makers, patients, OHCPs, and researchers on the potential effectiveness, benefits, and challenges of teledentistry and support them in making recommendations for its use. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations at conferences, and on social media.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 94%
- Impact of electronic medical records on healthcare delivery in Nigeria: A Review 92%
- Digital Health Technologies for Accessing Contraceptive Services among Young People in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review Protocol 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Strategies used to manage overlap of primary study data by exercise-related overviews. Protocol for a systematic methodological review 94%
- Effectiveness and clinical relevance of kinesio taping in musculoskeletal disorders: A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and evidence mapping 94%
- The use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: A scoping review protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quality assessment of studies included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews 97%
- Perceptions and willingness of patients and caregivers on the utilization of patient-generated health data: a cross-sectional survey 90%
- How should job crafting interventions be implemented to make their effects last? Study protocol of group concept mapping 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 90%
- Evaluation of ID NOW and RT-PCR for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in an Ambulatory Population 89%
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 89%
"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.