4.1 Review

Randomized clinical trials in periodontology: focus on outcomes selection

Journal

BRAZILIAN ORAL RESEARCH
Volume 35, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA ODONTOLOGICA
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2021.vol35.0100

Keywords

Clinical Trial; Treatment Outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical trials in periodontology involve selecting primary and secondary outcomes, with the primary outcomes prioritizing substantial health benefits and relevance to patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) show promise in accurately assessing oral health-related quality of life, providing a more comprehensive evaluation of periodontal treatments.
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are human studies carried out to compare different treatments or interventions, and their results are used to support clinical decision-making and improve patient care. Herein, the aim of this study was to review the selection process of study outcomes in periodontology. Primary outcomes should draw the main conclusions of the study, whereas secondary outcomes should only be used to help explain the main findings and generate future research hypothesis. Outcomes are classified as clinically relevant (CROs) or surrogate outcomes. CROs - the first option for primary outcome variables - should convey not only substantial health benefits, but also be deemed important by patients. In periodontology, tooth loss/retention and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) are examples of CROs. While tooth loss has main limitations as a primary outcome, emerging evidence suggest that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can accurately detect OHRQoL following periodontal therapy. When CROs cannot be assessed, validated surrogate outcomes can be used as proxies. Primary outcome variables should reflect a treatment endpoint at the patient level that can be easily used to inform decision-making in daily practice. These outcomes should allow the implementation of a treat-to-target concept in which the intervention can be clearly judged against a prespecified treatment target. Recently, the presence of at most 4 sites with periodontal probing depth >= 5 mm post-treatment was suggested as an effective endpoint for periodontal trials. In perspective, a combination of validated clinical parameters and PROMs will provide a more comprehensive assessment of periodontal treatments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available