F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
STUDY PROTOCOL
How oral health care organizations formulate actionable
statements to inform practice and policy: A protocol for a
systematic survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva 1-3, Xavier Bonfill Cosp4,5, Pablo Alonso-Coello5,
Camila Ávila-Oliver1,6, Michael Glick6, Alonso Carrasco-Labra 6,7
1Epistemonikos Foundation, Santiago, Santiago Metropolitan Region, Chile
2Programa de TTM y Dolor Orofacial, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Santiago Metropolitan Region,
Chile
3Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universitat Autonoma de
Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
4Clinical Epidemiology Service, Hospital Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
5Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Sant Pau Biomedical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
6Escuela de Odontología, Facultad de Odontología y Ciencias de la Rehabilitación, Universidad San Sebastián, Santiago, Santiago
Metropolitan Region, Chile
7Center for Integrative Global Oral Health, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
v1 First published: 03 Oct 2023, 12:1261 Open Peer Review
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.141423.1
Latest published: 03 Oct 2023, 12:1261
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.141423.1 Approval Status
1 2
Abstract
Background: Oral diseases are a major global public health problem version 1
that impacts the quality of life of those affected. While widespread 03 Oct 2023 view view
consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-
informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in
1. Carolina Castro Martins-Pfeifer , Federal
medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not
commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte,
This systematic survey aims to identify organizations developing Brazil
evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health
globally, and describe the methods and processes used. 2. Douglas Stirling , NHS Education for
Scotland, Dundee, UK
Methods: We will conduct manual searches on the websites of
guideline developers, Ministries of Health, and scientific societies. University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
Additionally, we will systematically search electronic databases to
Any reports and responses or comments on the
identify published guidelines and collect the name of the responsible
entity. We will include organizations that regularly develop guidelines article can be found at the end of the article.
on any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of
research evidence in its development process. Subsequently, we will
use a standardized form to extract data about the characteristics of
the organization, the characteristics of their guideline or policy
documents, and their formal recommendation development
processes. These data will be extracted from various sources, such as
the organization's official website, the methods section of each
Page 1 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
guideline, or methodological handbooks. We will use descriptive
statistics to analyze the extracted data.
Discussion: This systematic survey will synthesize key characteristics
and methodologies used by organizations developing evidence-
informed guidelines. This study will provide the basis for future
development of a sustainable and connected collaborative network
for evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health
globally. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed
publications, conference presentations, and targeted dissemination of
findings with the identified organizations. Our systematic survey
represents a necessary first step toward improving the field of oral
health policies and guidelines.
Keywords
Guidelines; guidance; Recommendations; GRADE; Practice statements;
Policy; Evidence-to-decision framework; Evidence-Based Dentistry,
Oral Health policy
This article is included in the GDC Open
Research in Latin America gateway.
Corresponding author: Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ([email protected])
Author roles: Verdugo-Paiva F: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing –
Review & Editing; Bonfill Cosp X: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision; Alonso-Coello P: Supervision, Writing – Review &
Editing; Ávila-Oliver C: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing; Glick M: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing –
Review & Editing; Carrasco-Labra A: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing –
Review & Editing
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright: © 2023 Verdugo-Paiva F et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite this article: Verdugo-Paiva F, Bonfill Cosp X, Alonso-Coello P et al. How oral health care organizations formulate
actionable statements to inform practice and policy: A protocol for a systematic survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.141423.1
First published: 03 Oct 2023, 12:1261 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.141423.1
Page 2 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
Background
Guidelines are systematically developed evidence-informed statements, including recommendations for clinical practice
or public health policy.1,2 Guidelines are fundamental to translate and transfer scientific knowledge to patients,
caregivers, clinicians, policy-makers, and other decision-makers.3 Ultimately, the optimal development, dissemination,
and implementation of high-quality guidelines may improve the performance of health systems and enhance health
outcomes.4
Recommendations or actionable statements contained in guidelines should be developed using systematic and transpar-
ent methods to identify and synthesize available evidence, as well as engage stakeholders and agreed upon recommen-
dations.5 In the medical field, there is a wide consensus about well-conducted systematic review being the most reliable
approach to synthesizing trustworthy evidence, and a considerable number of frameworks for addressing evidence to
decision process are available,6 such as the GRADE-EtD framework7 (Grading of Recommendations Assessment,
Development, and Evaluation - Evidence to Decision).
Multiple organizations worldwide, including scientific societies, professional associations, and Ministries of Health,
produce guidelines to support dental practice and inform public oral health decisions. However, these organizations rarely
follow appropriate methodologies, leading to guidelines with suboptimal quality.8–12 Despite the availability of standards
and definitions for the different types of actionable statements contained in guidelines, policy guidance, and similar
standards-setting documents in medicine,3 there is a vast set of terminologies used to categorize these documents among
organizations developing evidence-informed guidelines in oral health globally. Such misclassification could hinder
interprofessional communication and medical and dental care integration.
Developing high-quality healthcare guidelines is a complex and time-consuming process.2 However, there is growing
demand from stakeholders globally in oral health for these products. In 2022, the World Health Organization officially
approved and adopted the Global oral health strategy, which states that evidence-informed policies of cost-effective
interventions must be developed and implemented to influence global and national oral health outcomes. The document
also highlighted the importance of translating research findings into practice, including the development of regionally
specific, evidence-informed guidance.13
Oral diseases are a global public health problem and decrease the quality of life and well-being of those affected. As the
most prevalent diseases, such as dental caries, periodontal diseases, and oral cancer, are mostly preventable; high-quality
guidelines to address oral diseases with evidence-informed, cost-effective, and safe interventions are much needed.14
To make the needed improvement to ensure that high-quality guidelines are available for all relevant oral health
conditions, this systematic survey is a first step towards knowing the organizations that generate these documents
worldwide and comprehensively understanding how such guidelines are been developed.
Objectives
This systematic survey aims to identify organizations developing guidelines in oral health globally, and describe methods
and processes used to formulate actionable statements.
Methods
Eligibility criteria
We will include organizations that regularly develop guidelines in oral health, such as scientific societies, Ministries of
Health, professional associations, non-governmental organizations, or any working group. For the purpose of this study,
we will consider a ‘guideline’ any document or information product containing actionable statements that recommends or
suggests a particular course of action for clinical practice or public health policy.1,2
Within the term ‘guideline’, we will consider clinical practice guidelines, guidances, and similar policy documents that
enhance the decision-making process, by translating research findings into actionable statements for healthcare practice,
public health or policy decisions at the local (national or sub-national level), regional, or global level, and for a diverse
group of stakeholders, including but not restricted to patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, institutions,
or organizations.1,2,4,5,15
To be included, organizations worldwide must fulfill the following criteria:
• Produce at least three guidelines on any oral health topic since 2012, according to the oral health definition
provided by the FDI World Dental Federation and the WHO.16,17
Page 3 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
• Produce guidelines that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in its development processes,
regardless of whether the organization performs a de novo systematic review, uses pre-existing systematic
review, or conducts non-systematic literature reviews to support its decisions.
Organizations that solely produce educational documents or health system policy documents (documents containing
actionable statements related to service delivery, health workforce, health information systems, access to essential
medicines, vaccines, technology, financing, and leadership or governance) will be excluded.
Search and selection of the eligible organizations
To identify organizations responsible for guideline development in the field of oral health globally, we will perform both a
systematic and manual search. First, we will systematically search for oral health guidelines in electronic databases
(PubMed, Epistemonikos database) and guideline repositories, including the Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG)
Infobase, the International Guidelines Library from the Guideline International Networks (GIN), the Guideline Central,
the Alliance for the Implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines (AiCPG) and the Medical Information Distribution
Service (Minds) database. We will not limit the search by language or publication status, but the date will be restricted
(2012-present). Two reviewers will independently evaluate whether the documents identified are eligible, according to
our definition of a guideline. Any disagreements will be resolved with discussions between the independent reviewers.
If consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer (FV-P), will resolve disagreements. The organizations’ names could be
collected from various sources, such as the corresponding authors’ information, the supporter/funder organization, or the
methods section of the identified document.
In parallel, we will perform a manual search on the websites of guideline developers, scientific societies, professional
associations, and ministries of health globally. In addition, we will consult with experts in the field to identify missing
organizations that meet the inclusion criteria.
Two reviewers will independently evaluate whether the organizations detected by systematic or manual search are
eligible for inclusion in this study, according to the predefined criteria outlined above. The Figure 1 shows the flowchart
of the organization’s search and selection. The electronic databases search strategy, the sources used, and the consulted
websites are listed in the extended data (Extended data 1).
Data extraction
After an initial calibration exercise, two trained reviewers will extract data independently, using a previously piloted
standardized form. Calibration will consist of performing the complete data extraction of two different organizations.
Disagreements will be solved through discussion and consensus or with the help of a third reviewer. The data extraction
will be divided into three phases: a) Organization level, b) Guidelines or policy documents level, and c) Actionable
statement level (Figure 2).
1) Organization level
The form will cover information on the main characteristics of the included organizations, including the
organization type (e.g, non-governmental organization, governmental organization, or academic and research
institution), country, language, oral health clinical specialty, number of documents produced over the last ten
years, and the types of documents produced. The oral health clinical specialty will be classified according to the
list and definition of the recognized dental specialties approved by the National Commission for the Recognition
of Dental Specialties and Certification Boards of the American Dental Association (ADA)18 and the European
recognized dental specialties.19 Regarding the types of documents, we will extract the document name and their
description, according to the information provided by the organization (e.g, an organization produces “Clinical
Guidelines”, defined as recommendations for clinical practice based on a systematic review of the evidence,
along with an assessment of the benefits and possible harms of alternative dental care options, and the same
organization also produces “Oral Health Policies”, defined as evidence-informed statements relating to the
organization positions on various public health issues). We will categorize these documents into the following
categories: 1. Clinical practice guidelines, 2. Public health guidelines, 3. Health products policy and standards
(including Health Technology Assessment and Policy statements), and 4. Other, according to the following
definitions:
Guidelines: Corresponds to any product that includes systematically developed statements recommending or
suggesting a particular course of action for clinical practice or public health decisions. Recommendations are
actionable statements designed to help end-users make informed health decisions related to clinical interven-
tions, diagnostic tests, or public health measures to achieve the best individual or collective health outcomes.1,2,5
Page 4 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
Figure 1. Flowchart of search, identification, and selection of organizations producing guidelines.
Figure 2. Phases of data extraction.
Page 5 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
Policy statements: evidence-informed statements addressing issues of concern and importance to the public
health community. “Policy statements should describe and endorse a defined course of action, ranging from
legislation and regulations desired to needed new policies of non-governmental organizations and private
enterprises”.20
Health technology assessment: “Health technology assessment (HTA) refers to the to the systematic evalu-
ation of health technology’s properties, effects, and/or impacts. It is a multidisciplinary process to evaluate the
social, economic, organizational, and ethical issues of a health intervention or health technology. The main
purpose of conducting an assessment is to inform a policy decision-making. Considering the definition of health
technology, as the application of organized knowledge and skills in the form of medicines, medical devices,
vaccines, procedures, and systems developed to solve a health problem and improve quality of life”.21
2) Guidelines or policy documents level
For each document type produced by a single organization, we will extract the information about the main
characteristics of the guideline documents, as well as characteristics of the methodology, including the intended
users, stakeholders’ involvement, information about the working group or panel composition, conflicts of
interest (COI) management policy, and sources of funding. For example, if an organization produces more than
one document type with a distinct methodology (for example, a Ministry of Health produces clinical practice
guidelines and policy statements), we will extract the data for each document type independently. If this
information has changed over the years, we will extract the data from the latest published document.
Finally, we will use the taxonomy developed by Lofti et al. to classify the statements types used within
guidelines, to determine which guideline or policy document contains formal recommendations. A formal
recommendation is an actionable statement about the selection between two or more interventions in a specific
population and, if applicable, in a particular setting. These statements are the results of a structured process, and
they are explicitly linked to the evidence resulting from a systematic literature search and appraisal process.3
3) Actionable statement level
We will extract the development process information of the formal recommendations contained in the
guidelines. The extraction form will cover information on the type of methodological handbook used (e.-
g., International organization handbook, In-house handbook), the methods for searching and identifying the
research evidence (e.g., systematic review, non-systematic literature review), and information about the
evidence-to-decision (EtD) process, including the use of frameworks (e.g., GRADE-EtD, the Scottish Inter-
collegiate Guidelines Network framework, the United States Preventive Services Task Force framework).
A framework is defined as any structure of concepts underlying a structured process, in this case, the process of
formulating recommendations (EtD process).6
The information from each organization, the document type, and the formal recommendation development
processes will be collected from various sources, such as the organization’s official website, the methods
section of each guideline, a reference manual, or a methodological handbook. If available, we will include the
latest version of the methodological handbook. If the methods for developing formal recommendations have
changed over the years, we will extract the data from the latest published document.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the characteristics that will be extracted for each organization and document type.
Data analysis and synthesis
The results and data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, including mean and median and their corresponding
measures of dispersion. Frequencies and proportions will be calculated for all variables. We have identified a series of
taxonomies, for example, to classify how the organizations describe their methodology to assess the certainty of the
evidence, the determination of the direction and strength of actionable statements, and frameworks to move from the
evidence to the decisions. These taxonomies will be reviewed and updated in an iterative process as new categories
emerge (Tables 2 and 3). Data will be presented in text and tables using narrative synthesis.
We will use the synthesized quantitative and qualitative data to produce a series of recommendations to improve the
production of oral health guidelines worldwide. These recommendations will be formulated in a panel meeting including
experts in the conduct of evidence synthesis and the creation of guidelines and policies. This group will include
Page 6 of 13
Table 1. Organization level - Main characteristics.
Organization type Continent Language Dental specialty Number of documents Document type
produced over the last
ten years
1. Non-governmental Asia English Dental Anesthesiology 3-5 1. Clinical practice guidelines
organization
1.1 Scientific society Africa Mandarin Dental Public Health 6-10 2. Public health guidelines
Chinese
1.2 Professional association Europe Hindi Endodontics 11-15 3. Health products policy and
standards
2. Governmental North America Spanish Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology ≥16 3.1 Health technology
Organization assessment
2.1 Ministry of Health Middle America French Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology 3.2 Policy statements
2.2 Governmental healthcare South America Arabic Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 4. Other
agency
3. Academic and research Australia/Oceania Bengali Oral Medicine
institutions
3.1 University Antarctica Russian Orofacial Pain
3.2 Research center NA Portuguese Orthodontics and Dentofacial
Orthopedics
German Pediatric Dentistry
Other Periodontics
Prosthodontics
Restorative
Special Care
Stomatognathic physiology
General Dentistry
Page 7 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
Table 2. Guideline level - Main characteristics and methodology.
Guideline or policy Intended users* Stakeholder COI policy COI reported Funding source
level involvement
Local (sub-national) Policy-makers Clinicians COI management Non-financial interest only 1. Funding source reported
policies
National Healthcare managers Methodologists No COI management Financial interests only 1.1 Non-profit association
policies
Regional Organizational leaders Policy-makers Not reported Financial and non-financial 1.2 Government
interests
Global Healthcare Patient representatives 1.3 Industry
professionals
Researchers Others 1.4 Medical Association
Citizens 2. No reported
COI: conflicts of interest.
*More than one response is possible.
Table 3. Actionable statement level - Methods and processes used for formal recommendation development.
Methodological handbook Methodology to Methodology to assess the Approach for deciding the direction Frameworks used for EtD
identify evidence certainty of evidence* and/or grading the strength* process*
1. Handbook used 1. Formal SR 1. Formal assessment 1. Formal approach 1. Formal EtD framework
1.1 International organization 1.1 De novo SR 1.1 GRADE 1.1 GRADE 1.1 GRADE-EtD
handbook (e.g., WHO)
1.2 Guidelines development 1.2 Previous SR 1.2 OCEBM Levels of Evidence 1.2 NHMRC 1.2 NICE
methodology (e.g., GRADE-
ADOLOPMENT)
1.3 In-house handbook 1.3 Previous guidelines or 1.3 NHMRC 1.3 SIGN 1.3 SIGN
policy
2. No handbook used 2. Non-systematic 1.4 SIGN 1.4 CEBM 1.4 USPSTF
literature review
3. Unclear 4. Unclear 1.5 USPSTF 1.5 NICE 1.5 Own approach
1.6 Own approach 1.6 USPSTF 1.6 Other
1.7 Other 1.7 Own approach 2. Unclear
2. Unclear 1.8 Other
2. Unclear
SR: Systematic Review; EtD: Evidence to Decision; GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; OCEBM: Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; NHMRC: Australian
National Health and Medical Research Council; SIGN: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; USPSTF: United States Preventive Services Task Force; NICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence;
GRADE-EtD: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence to Decision.
*The list of options is based on the results reported by Meneses-Echavez et al.6 We will add new options if new approaches and frameworks are used in the oral health field.
Page 8 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
epidemiologists, statisticians, methodologists with expertise in systematic reviews and meta-analysis, experts trained in
the use of the GRADE approach, investigators with expertise in patients’ values and preferences elucidation, policy-
makers, and a patient partner member.
Discussion
Scant information is available about how guidelines are being developed in the oral health field worldwide. Guidelines
and policy documents available are dispersed in different sources, and there is a lack of coordination and dialogue among
the different institutions, leading to wasted resources.
This systematic survey will synthesize the main characteristics and the methodology used by organizations dedicated to
guideline and policy development to formulate actionable statements in oral health. This is the first study that seeks to
identify the organizations responsible for developing oral health policies and guidelines worldwide, as well as describe
the processes and methods followed.
By summarizing this information, we will gain insight for future assessment of potential barriers to and facilitators for
using research evidence and applying EtD frameworks in these documents. This study will provide a foundation for the
future development of a sustainable and connected collaborative network for evidence-informed guidelines and policies
in oral health globally. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations,
and targeted dissemination of findings with the identified organizations and other stakeholders in the area of clinical
and policy decision-making. Our systematic survey represents an important first step toward informing the adoption
and creation of standardized processes for the development of oral health policies and guidelines that meet current
methodological standards in the medical field. This goal further contributes to the dental and medical integration
paradigm.
Ethics and dissemination
No ethical approval is needed for this systematic survey. The authors intend to present the findings at target conferences
and publish the research findings in a peer-reviewed journal adopting open science practices.
Study status
Search strategy completed. Initiating data collection. Analysis expected to be completed by December 2023.
Patient and public involvement
No patient and public involvement took place in the development or conduct of this protocol.
Data availability
Underlying data
No data are associated with this article.
Extended data
Fighshare: Guideline and policy developers in Oral health care. Search strategy and sources, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.
figshare.23995140.v1.22
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
References
1. Institute of Medicine: Clinical practice guideline we can trust. 4. Langlois EV, Daniels K, Akl EA, editors. Evidence synthesis for health
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. policy and systems: a methods guide. Geneva: World Health
[Accessed 2023 August 20]. Organization; 2018. [Accessed 2023 August 20].
Reference Source Reference Source
2. World Health Organization: WHO handbook for guideline 5. Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges:
development. 2nd ed. World Health Organization; 2014. The Evidence Commission report: A wake-up call and path forward for
[Accessed 2023 August 20]. decision-makers, evidence intermediaries, and impact-oriented
Reference Source evidence producers. Hamilton: McMaster Health Forum; 2022.
3. Lotfi T, Hajizadeh A, Moja L, et al.: A taxonomy and framework for [Accessed 2023 June 20].
identifying and developing actionable statements in guidelines Reference Source
suggests avoiding informal recommendations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 6. Meneses-Echavez JF, Bidonde J, Yepes-Nuñez JJ, et al.: Evidence to
2022; 141: 161–171. decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text development of healthcare recommendations. J. Clin. Epidemiol.
Page 9 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
2022; 150: 51–62. 14. Peres MA, Macpherson LMD, Weyant RJ, et al. : Oral diseases:
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text a global public health challenge. Lancet (London, England). 2019;
7. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al.: 394(10194): 249–260.
GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic Publisher Full Text
and transparent approach to making well informed 15. World Health Organization: Evidence, policy, impact. WHO guide for
healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). evidence-informed decision-making. Geneva: World Health
2016; 353: i2016. Organization; 2021. [Accessed 2023 August 20].
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text Reference Source
8. Deana NF, Zaror C, Seiffert A, et al.: Quality appraisal of clinical 16. Glick M, Williams DM, Kleinman DV, et al.: A new definition for oral
practice guidelines on provision of dental services during the health developed by the FDI World Dental Federation opens the
first months of the covid-19 pandemic. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. door to a universal definition of oral health. Br. Dent. J. 2016;
2021; 21(4): 101633. 221(12): 792–793.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text|Free Full Text Publisher Full Text
9. Glenny AM, Worthington HV, Clarkson JE, et al.: The appraisal of 17. World Health Organization: Draft Global Strategy on Oral Health.
clinical guidelines in dentistry. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2009; 2(2): Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. [Accessed 2023
135–143. March 20].
PubMed Abstract Reference Source
10. Tejani T, Mubeen S, Seehra J, et al.: An exploratory quality 18. National Commission on Recognition of Dental Specialties
assessment of orthodontic clinical guidelines using the AGREE II and Certifying Boards. American Dental Association;
instrument. Eur. J. Orthod. 2017; 39(6): 654–659. [Accessed 2023 March 16].
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text Reference Source
11. Madera Anaya MV, Franco JV, Merchán-Galvis ÁM, et al. : Quality 19. García-Espona I, García-Espona E, Alarcón JA, et al.: European
assessment of clinical practice guidelines on treatments for inequalities and similarities in officially recognized dental
oral cancer. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2018; 65: 47–53. specialties. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1): 280.
Publisher Full Text PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text|Free Full Text
12. Arieta-Miranda J, Alcaychahua AS, Santos GP, et al.: Quality 20. American Public Health Association: Policy statement
assessment of clinical practice guidelines for the management development process. Guidelines for the Preparation,
of paediatric dental emergencies applicable to the COVID-19 Submission, Review, Revision, Consideration, and Adoption of
pandemic, using the AGREE II instrument. A systematic review. Proposed Policy Statements. 2019. [Accessed 2023 August 20].
Heliyon. 2020; 6(12): e05612. Reference Source
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text|Free Full Text 21. World Health Organization: Health technology assessment of medical
13. World Health Assembly: Follow-up to the Political Declaration of devices. World Health Organization; 2011. [Accessed 2023 June 30].
the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Reference Source
Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases. 2013. 22. Verdugo F: Search strategy and sources. figshare. 2023.
Reference Source Publisher Full Text
Page 10 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
Open Peer Review
Current Peer Review Status:
Version 1
Reviewer Report 17 November 2023
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154867.r216660
© 2023 Stirling D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Douglas Stirling
1 SDCEP, NHS Education for Scotland, Dundee, Scotland, UK
2 Dundee Dental Hospital and Research School, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK
The authors propose a comprehensive investigation of the methods used to develop actionable
statements in the field of oral health. This will be achieved through an ambitious systematic survey
to identify various relevant resources, including clinical practice guidelines, policy statements and
health technology assessments.
The researchers will systematically search for relevant oral health documents and source
organisations responsible for their development. Duplicate screening for eligibility will be
conducted.
Calibrated data extraction at several levels (organisational, document and actionable statement
level) will be carried out, and the data subject to descriptive statistical and qualitative analysis,
using taxonomies described in the protocol.
Based on this analysis, the researchers aim to identify barriers and facilitators for the use of
research evidence and decision making in these types of documents and to provide
recommendations for production of future oral health guidelines.
The researchers could consider also including the ECRI Guidelines Trust
(https://guidelines.ecri.org/) as a guideline repository in their search. Keeping healthcare
guidelines up-to-date is increasingly important and challenging as more guidelines become
available and resources to maintain them are stretched. It would be particularly useful if the
survey could comment on methodologies identified for reviewing and updating actionable
statements.
I believe this to be a novel and very valuable area of research. This proposed work is very clearly
described. It has the potential to serve a crucial role in advancing understanding about the
development evidence-informed oral health guidance globally and could contribute towards
coordinating and standardising processes to provide more consistently developed resources.
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Page 11 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Evidence-based healthcare. Implementation science.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Reviewer Report 31 October 2023
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154867.r216659
© 2023 Martins-Pfeifer C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Carolina Castro Martins-Pfeifer
School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
I congratulate the authors on this systematic survey. The aim is to identify organizations
developing guidelines in oral health globally, and describe the methods used to formulate the
statements. The development of clinical practice guidelines may be common in medicine.
However, related to oral health, some continents may be stronger in producing clinical practice
guidelines than others.
The protocol will systematically search electronic databases for organizations, guidelines and
policy documents. A manual search will also be included. Paired independent reviewers will screen
documents and extract data. Data will be extracted at the organizational level (such as Ministries
of Health, for example) and for guideline or policy document level. The authors plan a descriptive
analysis. Even if it is not the study's main purpose, I suggest the authors consider testing
differences between the variables collected stratified per continent.
In the discussion, the research plan will help to identify barriers and facilitators for using research
evidence and evidence to decision frameworks in these documents. Moreover, the research could
help connect a collaborative network for evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents
worldwide.
The research subject is original and important to oral health, especially due to the need to
increase the high quality guidelines in all the continents. The protocol is well written. The tables
showing the variables to be extracted are very helpful.
Page 12 of 13
F1000Research 2023, 12:1261 Last updated: 17 NOV 2023
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: evidence-based practice and pediatric dentistry.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
The benefits of publishing with F1000Research:
• Your article is published within days, with no editorial bias
• You can publish traditional articles, null/negative results, case reports, data notes and more
• The peer review process is transparent and collaborative
• Your article is indexed in PubMed after passing peer review
• Dedicated customer support at every stage
For pre-submission enquiries, contact [email protected]
Page 13 of 13
