Several systematic reviews with meta-analyses on the effectiveness of periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control have been published. So far no overview of these systematic reviews has been performed. The main objective of this report was to assess critically these systematic reviews to provide the reader with a high-level synthesis of research evidence. MEDLINE (via PubMed) and EMBASE databases were searched independently and in duplicate to identify systematic reviews with meta-analyses of clinical studies that assessed the relationship between diabetes mellitus and periodontitis. The last database search was performed on 10 March 2015. The reference lists of included systematic reviews were also scrutinized for further publications. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed independently with two validated checklists (AMSTAR and OQAQ) by two authors. Disagreements in the assessment were resolved by consensus. A total of 226 potential publications were initially retrieved. Eleven systematic reviews with meta-analyses were finally included. Glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was the most commonly used clinical endpoint. Meta-analytic estimates from systematic reviews generated an average reduction of 0.46% (median 0.40%) of HbA1c in patients with diabetes mellitus who received periodontal treatment. These meta-analyses had, nevertheless, methodological limitations such as inclusion of trials with different types of risk of bias that hinder more robust conclusions. A recent meta-analysis that included recently published large randomized controlled trials did not show significant change in the level of HbA1c at the 6 mo follow-up. The AMSTAR checklist generated results that were more conservative than OQAQ. Findings from this overview do not support the information that periodontal treatment may improve glycaemic control. Methodological issues described in this overview may guide further research on this topic.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
2%
Nursing and Health Professions
1
2%
Other
2
3%
Unknown
22
34%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,613,172
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Periodontal Research
#78
of 1,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,125
of 313,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Periodontal Research
#6
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,097 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
