Dario Sambunjak

Bio: Dario Sambunjak is an academic researcher from The Catholic University of America. The author has contributed to research in topics: Interdental consonant & Gingivitis. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 53 publications receiving 2726 citations. Previous affiliations of Dario Sambunjak include University of Zagreb & Cochrane Collaboration.

Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review.

Abstract: ContextMentoring, as a partnership in personal and professional growth and development, is central to academic medicine, but it is challenged by increased clinical, administrative, research, and other educational demands on medical faculty. Therefore, evidence for the value of mentoring needs to be evaluated.ObjectiveTo systematically review the evidence about the prevalence of mentorship and its relationship to career development.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Current Contents, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases from the earliest available date to May 2006.Study Selection and Data ExtractionWe identified all studies evaluating the effect of mentoring on career choices and academic advancement among medical students and physicians. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the study population and availability of extractable data. No restrictions were placed on study methods or language.Data SynthesisThe literature search identified 3640 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 142 full-text articles for assessment; 42 articles describing 39 studies were selected for review. Of these, 34 (87%) were cross-sectional self-report surveys with small sample size and response rates ranging from 5% to 99%. One case-control study nested in a survey used a comparison group that had not received mentoring, and 1 cohort study had a small sample size and a large loss to follow-up. Less than 50% of medical students and in some fields less than 20% of faculty members had a mentor. Women perceived that they had more difficulty finding mentors than their colleagues who are men. Mentorship was reported to have an important influence on personal development, career guidance, career choice, and research productivity, including publication and grant success.ConclusionsMentoring is perceived as an important part of academic medicine, but the evidence to support this perception is not strong. Practical recommendations on mentoring in medicine that are evidence-based will require studies using more rigorous methods, addressing contextual issues, and using cross-disciplinary approaches.

A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Mentorship is perceived to play a significant role in the career development and productivity of academic clinicians, but little is known about the characteristics of mentorship. This knowledge would be useful for those developing mentorship programs.

Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.

Abstract: Background Good oral hygiene is thought to be important for oral health. This review is to determine the effectiveness of flossing in addition to toothbrushing for preventing gum disease and dental caries in adults. Objectives To assess the effects of flossing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone, in the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 17 October 2011), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 17 October 2011), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 17 October 2011), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 17 October 2011), Clinicaltrials.gov (to 17 October 2011) and the metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (to 17 October 2011). We imposed no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted manufacturers of dental floss to identify trials. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials conducted comparing toothbrushing and flossing with only toothbrushing, in adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity, along with sensitivity analyses omitting trials at high risk of bias. Main results Twelve trials were included in this review, with a total of 582 participants in flossing plus toothbrushing (intervention) groups and 501 participants in toothbrushing (control) groups. All included trials reported the outcomes of plaque and gingivitis. Seven of the included trials were assessed as at unclear risk of bias and five were at high risk of bias. Flossing plus toothbrushing showed a statistically significant benefit compared to toothbrushing in reducing gingivitis at the three time points studied, the SMD being -0.36 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.05) at 1 month, SMD -0.41 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.14) at 3 months and SMD -0.72 (95% CI -1.09 to -0.35) at 6 months. The 1-month estimate translates to a 0.13 point reduction on a 0 to 3 point scale for Loe-Silness gingivitis index, and the 3 and 6 month results translate to 0.20 and 0.09 reductions on the same scale. Overall there is weak, very unreliable evidence which suggests that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 or 3 months. None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects. Authors' conclusions There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries.

Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries

Abstract: Background Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other. Search methods Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks). Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). Main results We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Loe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5). Primary objective comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone. Secondary objective comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation. Authors' conclusions Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.

Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Effective oral hygiene is a crucial factor in maintaining good oral health, which is associated with overall health and health-related quality of life Dental floss has been used for many years in conjunction with toothbrushing for removing dental plaque in between teeth, however, interdental brushes have been developed which many people find easier to use than floss, providing there is sufficient space between the teeth OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone or toothbrushing and flossing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases, dental plaque and dental caries SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 7 March 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 7 March 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 7 March 2013), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 7 March 2013), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 7 March 2013), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 7 March 2013) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 7 March 2013) We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrialsgov) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://wwwcontrolled-trialscom/mrct/) for ongoing trials to 7 March 2013 No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth design, cross-over and cluster-randomised trials) of dentate adult patients The interventions were a combination of toothbrushing and any interdental brushing procedure compared with toothbrushing only or toothbrushing and flossing DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed each of the included studies to confirm eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes where different scales were used to assess an outcome We attempted to extract data on adverse effects of interventions Where data were missing or unclear we attempted to contact study authors to obtain further information MAIN RESULTS: There were seven studies (total 354 participants analysed) included in this review We assessed one study as being low, three studies as being high and three studies as being at unclear risk of bias Studies only reported the clinical outcome gingivitis and plaque data, with no studies providing data on many of the outcomes: periodontitis, caries, halitosis and quality of life Three studies reported that no adverse events were observed or reported during the study Two other studies provided some data on adverse events but we were unable to pool the data due to lack of detail Two studies did not report whether adverse events occurred Interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone Only one high risk of bias study (62 participants in analysis) looked at this comparison and there was very low-quality evidence for a reduction in gingivitis (0 to 4 scale, mean in control): mean difference (MD) 053 (95% CI 023 to 083) and plaque (0 to 5 scale): MD 095 (95% CI 056 to 134) at one month, favouring of use of interdental brushes This represents a 34% reduction in gingivitis and a 32% reduction in plaque Interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing and flossing Seven studies provided data showing a reduction in gingivitis in favour of interdental brushing at one month: SMD -053 (95% CI -081 to -024, seven studies, 326 participants, low-quality evidence) This translates to a 52% reduction in gingivitis (Eastman Bleeding Index) Although a high effect size in the same direction was observed at three months (SMD -198, 95% CI -542 to 147, two studies, 107 participants, very low quality), the confidence interval was wide and did not exclude the possibility of no difference There was insufficient evidence to claim a benefit for either interdental brushing or flossing for reducing plaque (SMD at one month 010, 95% CI -013 to 033, seven studies, 326 participants, low-quality evidence) and insufficient evidence at three months (SMD -214, 95% CI -525 to 097, two studies, 107 participants very low-quality evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only one study looked at whether toothbrushing with interdental brushing was better than toothbrushing alone, and there was very low-quality evidence for a reduction in gingivitis and plaque at one month There is also low-quality evidence from seven studies that interdental brushing reduces gingivitis when compared with flossing, but these results were only found at one month There was insufficient evidence to determine whether interdental brushing reduced or increased levels of plaque when compared to flossing

Evaluation of Training.

Abstract: The main purpose of this paper is to draw attention to some facts and ideas that perhaps can help to identify problems or fields for development and research within the evaluation of training. Topics for group discussion are preceded by material on some basic concepts of evaluation and educational measurement. The ratio scale, the interval scale, the ordinal scale, and the nominal scale are given as examples of kinds of scales used in educational measurement; the problem of norms is discussed; potential purposes of evaluation or educational measurement are outlined; and some characteristics of a good measuring instrument are explained. The author also defends the inclusion of evaluation as an Integral part of a model for planning and carrying out educational programs. (BW) *********************************************************************** Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished * materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not * responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. *********************************************************************** U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION &WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EVALUATION OF TRAINING

Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice

Abstract: Collaborations of physicians and researchers with industry can provide valuable benefits to society, particularly in the translation of basic scientific discoveries to new therapies and products. Recent reports and news stories have, however, documented disturbing examples of relationships and practices that put at risk the integrity of medical research, the objectivity of professional education, the quality of patient care, the soundness of clinical practice guidelines, and the public's trust in medicine. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice provides a comprehensive look at conflict of interest in medicine. It offers principles to inform the design of policies to identify, limit, and manage conflicts of interest without damaging constructive collaboration with industry. It calls for both short-term actions and long-term commitments by institutions and individuals, including leaders of academic medical centers, professional societies, patient advocacy groups, government agencies, and drug, device, and pharmaceutical companies. Failure of the medical community to take convincing action on conflicts of interest invites additional legislative or regulatory measures that may be overly broad or unduly burdensome. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice makes several recommendations for strengthening conflict of interest policies and curbing relationships that create risks with little benefit. The book will serve as an invaluable resource for individuals and organizations committed to high ethical standards in all realms of medicine.