Medizinische Universität Graz - Research portal
Selected Publication:
SHR Neuro Cancer Cardio Lipid Metab Microb
Pommer, B; Becker, K; Arnhart, C; Fabian, F; Rathe, F; Stigler, RG.
How meta-analytic evidence impacts clinical decision making in oral implantology: a Delphi opinion poll.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27(3):282-287
Doi: 10.1111/clr.12528
Web of Science
PubMed
FullText
FullText_MUG
- Co-authors Med Uni Graz
- Fabian Ferenc
- Altmetrics:
- Dimensions Citations:
- Plum Analytics:
- Scite (citation analytics):
- Abstract:
- To investigate the impact of meta-analytic evidence in scientific literature on clinical decision making in the field of oral implantology. A Delphi opinion poll was performed at the meeting of the "Next Generation" Committees of the Austrian, German and Swiss Societies for Implantology (ÖGI, DGI and SGI). First, the experts gave their opinion on 20 questions regarding routine implant treatment (uninformed decisions), then they were confronted with up-to-date Level I evidence from scientific literature on these topics and again asked to give their opinion (informed decisions) as well as to rate the available evidence as satisfactory or insufficient. Topics involved surgical issues, such as immediate implant placement, flapless surgery, tilted and short implants and bone substitute materials, as well as opinions on prosthodontic paradigms, such as immediate loading, abutment materials and platform switching. Compared to their uninformed decisions prior to confrontation with recent scientific literature, on average, 37% of experts (range: 15-50%) changed their opinion on the topic. When originally favoring one treatment alternative, less than half were still convinced after review of meta-analytic evidence. Discrepancy between uninformed and informed decisions was significantly associated with insufficient evidence (P = 0.014, 49% change of opinion vs. 26% on topics rated as sufficiently backed with evidence). Agreement regarding strength of evidence could be reached for eight topics (40%), in three issues toward sufficiency and in five issues toward lack of evidence. Confrontation with literature results significantly changes clinical decisions of implantologists, particularly in cases of ambiguous or lacking meta-analytic evidence. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- Find related publications in this database (using NLM MeSH Indexing)
- Austria -
- Clinical Decision-Making -
- Congresses as Topic -
- Delphi Technique -
- Dental Implantation, Endosseous -
- Evidence-Based Dentistry -
- Germany -
- Humans -
- Review Literature as Topic -
- Switzerland -
- Find related publications in this database (Keywords)
- decision making
- dental implant
- evidence-based dentistry
- expert opinion
- implant-supported dental prosthesis
- patient preference