4.6 Article

Systematic review of pre-clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites and/or systemically compromised animals

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 37-62

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01833.x

关键词

alendronate; animals; bone grafting; bone regeneration; data reporting; dental implants; diabetes mellitus; guidelines; irradiation; methods; osseointegration; osteoporosis; smoking; systematic review

资金

  1. European Federation of Periodontology
  2. Astra, Nobel Biocare and Straumann

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim was to systematically search the dental literature for pre-clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites (part 1) and systemically compromised animals (part 2), and to evaluate the quality of reporting of included publications. Methods: A Medline search (1966-2011) was performed, complimented by additional hand searching. The quality of reporting of the included publications was evaluated using the 20 items of the ARRIVE (Animals in Research In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Results: One-hundred and seventy-six (part 1; mean ARRIVE score = 15.6 +/- 2.4) and 104 (part 2; 16.2 +/- 1.9) studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean score for all included studies amounted to 15.8 +/- 2.2. Housing (38.3%), allocation of animals (37.9%), numbers analysed (50%) and adverse events (51.4%) of the ARRIVE guidelines were the least reported. Statistically significant differences in mean ARRIVE scores were found depending on the publication date (p < 0.05), with the highest score of 16.7 +/- 1.6 for studies published within the last 2 years. Conclusions: A large number of studies met the inclusion criteria. The ARRIVE scores revealed heterogeneity and missing information for selected items in more than 50% of the publications. The quality of reporting shifted towards betterreported pre-clinical trials within recent years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据