scispace - formally typeset
Author

Paul V Beirne

Bio: Paul V Beirne is an academic researcher from University College Cork. The author has contributed to research in topic(s): Recall & Watchful waiting. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 13 publication(s) receiving 742 citation(s).
Papers
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The study compared the effects of a clinical examination every 12 months with aclinical examination every 24 months on the outcomes of caries and economic cost outcomes and found insufficient evidence to determine whether 12 or 24-month recall with clinical examination results in better caries outcomes.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check-up and the potential effects on oral health of altering recall intervals between check-ups have been the subject of ongoing international debate in recent decades. Although recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, six-monthly dental check-ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many developed countries.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005, and previously updated in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of different fixed recall intervals (for example six months versus 12 months) for the following different types of dental check-up: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus preventive advice plus scale and polish.To determine the relative beneficial and harmful effects between any of these different types of dental check-up at the same fixed recall interval.To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of recall intervals based on clinicians' assessment of patients' disease risk with fixed recall intervals.To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic) with fixed recall intervals. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 27 September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 27 September 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 27 September 2013). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) for ongoing trials. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of some papers were contacted to identify further trials and obtain additional information. We did not apply any restrictions regarding language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different dental recall intervals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results against the inclusion criteria of the review, extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessment. We contacted study authors for clarification or further information where necessary and feasible. If we had found more than one study with similar comparisons reporting the same outcomes, we would have combined the studies in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model if there were at least four studies, or a fixed-effect model if there were less than four studies. We expressed the estimate of effect as mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. We would have used risk ratios with 95% CI for any dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study that analysed 185 participants. The study compared the effects of a clinical examination every 12 months with a clinical examination every 24 months on the outcomes of caries (decayed, missing, filled surfaces (dmfs/DMFS) increment) and economic cost outcomes (total time used per person). As the study was at high risk of bias, had a small sample size and only included low-risk participants, we rated the quality of the body of evidence for these outcomes as very low.For three to five-year olds with primary teeth, the mean difference (MD) in dmfs increment was -0.90 (95% CI -1.96 to 0.16) in favour of 12-month recall. For 16 to 20-year olds with permanent teeth, the MD in DMFS increment was -0.86 (95% CI -1.75 to 0.03) also in favour of 12-month recall. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether 12 or 24-month recall with clinical examination results in better caries outcomes.For three to five-year olds with primary teeth, the MD in time used by each participant was 10 minutes (95% CI -6.7 to 26.7) in favour of 24-month recall. For 16 to 20-year olds with permanent teeth, the MD was 23.7 minutes (95% CI 4.12 to 43.28) also in favour of 24-month recall. This single study at high risk of bias represents insufficient evidence to determine whether 12 or 24-month recall with clinical examination results in better time/cost outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a very low quality body of evidence from one RCT which is insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial and harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is no evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients to attend for dental check-ups at six-monthly intervals. It is important that high quality RCTs are conducted for the outcomes listed in this review in order to address the objectives of this review.

166 citations


8


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study showed no evidence to claim or refute benefit for scale and polish treatments for the outcomes of gingivitis, calculus and plaque in healthy dentate adults, without severe periodontitis.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even if those patients are considered to be at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the 'optimal' frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing or both of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), that does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were: 1) to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health; 2) to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of providing routine scaling and polishing at different time intervals on periodontal health; 3) to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing with or without oral hygiene instruction (OHI) on periodontal health; and 4) to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or dental care professional (dental therapist or dental hygienist) on periodontal health. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 15 July 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 15 July 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 15 July 2013). We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) for ongoing and completed studies to July 2013. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments (excluding split-mouth trials) with and without OHI in healthy dentate adults, without severe periodontitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data and, where results were meta-analysed, we used a fixed-effect model as there were fewer than four studies. Study authors were contacted where possible and where deemed necessary for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies were included in this review with 836 participants included in the analyses. All three studies are assessed as at unclear risk of bias. The numerical results are only presented here for the primary outcome gingivitis. There were no useable data presented in the studies for the outcomes of attachment change and tooth loss. No studies reported any adverse effects.- Objective 1: Scale and polish versus no scale and polish Only one trial provided data for the comparison between scale and polish versus no scale and polish. This study was conducted in general practice and compared both six-monthly and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments with no treatment. This study showed no evidence to claim or refute benefit for scale and polish treatments for the outcomes of gingivitis, calculus and plaque. The MD for six-monthly scale and polish, for the percentage of index teeth with bleeding at 24 months was -2% (95% CI -10% to 6%; P value = 0.65), with 40% of the sites in the control group with bleeding. The MD for 12-monthly scale and polish was -1% (95% CI -9% to 7%; P value = 0.82). The body of evidence was assessed as of low quality.- Objective 2: Scale and polish at different time intervals Two studies, both at unclear risk of bias, compared routine scale and polish provided at different time intervals. When comparing six with 12 months there was insufficient evidence to determine a difference for gingivitis at 24 months SMD -0.08 (95% CI -0.27 to 0.10). There were some statistically significant differences in favour of scaling and polishing provided at more frequent intervals, in particular between three and 12 months for the outcome of gingivitis at 24 months, with OHI, MD -0.14 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.05; P value = 0.003) and without OHI MD -0.21 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.12; P value < 0.001) (mean per patient measured on 0-3 scale), based on one study. There was some evidence of a reduction in calculus. This body of evidence was assessed as of low quality.- Objective 3: Scale and polish with and without OHIOne study provided data for the comparison of scale and polish treatment with and without OHI. There was a reduction in gingivitis for the 12-month scale and polish treatment when assessed at 24 months MD -0.14 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.06) in favour of including OHI. There were also significant reductions in plaque for both three and 12-month scale and polish treatments when OHI was included. The body of evidence was once again assessed as of low quality.- Objective 4: Scale and polish provided by a dentist compared with a dental care professionalNo studies were found which compared the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or dental care professional (dental therapist or dental hygienist) on periodontal health. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of routine scale and polish treatments. High quality trials conducted in general dental practice settings with sufficiently long follow-up periods (five years or more) are required to address the objectives of this review.

121 citations


8


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Limited evidence suggests that workplace dietary modification interventions alone and in combination with nutrition education increase fruit and vegetable intakes and these interventions should be developed with recommended guidelines, workplace characteristics, long-term follow-up and objective outcomes for diet, health and cost.
Abstract: Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace dietary modification interventions alone or in combination with nutrition education on employees' dietary behaviour, health status, self-efficacy, perceived health, determinants of food choice, nutrition knowledge, co-worker support, job satisfaction, economic cost and food-purchasing patterns. Method Data sources included PubMed, Medline, Embase, Psych Info., Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Library (November 2011). This review was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Studies were randomised controlled trials and controlled studies. Interventions were implemented for at least three months. Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool measured potential biases. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Results were presented in a narrative summary. Results Six studies conducted in Brazil, the USA, Netherlands and Belgium met the inclusion criteria. Four studies reported small increases in fruit and vegetable consumption (≤ half serving/day). These studies involved workplace dietary modifications and three incorporated nutrition education. Other outcomes reported included health status, co-worker support, job satisfaction, perceived health, self-efficacy and food-purchasing patterns. All studies had methodological limitations that weakened confidence in the results. Conclusion Limited evidence suggests that workplace dietary modification interventions alone and in combination with nutrition education increase fruit and vegetable intakes. These interventions should be developed with recommended guidelines, workplace characteristics, long-term follow-up and objective outcomes for diet, health and cost.

103 citations


Journal Article
TL;DR: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients to attend for dental check-ups at 6-monthly intervals, and there are no conclusions to draw regarding the potential beneficial and harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dentalCheck-ups.
Abstract: BACKGROUND The frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check-up and the potential effects on oral health of altering recall intervals between check-ups have been the subject of ongoing international debate for almost 3 decades. Although recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, 6-monthly dental check-ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many developed countries. OBJECTIVES To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of different fixed recall intervals (for example 6 months versus 12 months) for the following different types of dental check-up: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus preventive advice plus scale and polish. To determine the relative beneficial and harmful effects between any of these different types of dental check-up at the same fixed recall interval. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of recall intervals based on clinicians' assessment of patients' disease risk with fixed recall intervals. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic) with fixed recall intervals. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of some papers were contacted to identify further trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: 9th April 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design- random allocation of participants; participants - all children and adults receiving dental check-ups in primary care settings, irrespective of their level of risk for oral disease; interventions -recall intervals for the following different types of dental check-ups: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus scale and polish plus preventive advice; e) no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic); f) clinician risk-based recall intervals; outcomes - clinical status outcomes for dental caries (including, but not limited to, mean dmft/DMFT, dmfs/DMFS scores, caries increment, filled teeth (including replacement restorations), early carious lesions arrested or reversed); periodontal disease (including, but not limited to, plaque, calculus, gingivitis, periodontitis, change in probing depth, attachment level); oral mucosa (presence or absence of mucosal lesions, potentially malignant lesions, cancerous lesions, size and stage of cancerous lesions at diagnosis). In addition the following outcomes were considered where reported: patient-centred outcomes, economic cost outcomes, other outcomes such as improvements in oral health knowledge and attitudes, harms, changes in dietary habits and any other oral health-related behavioural change. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two authors. Authors were contacted, where deemed necessary and where possible, for further details regarding study design and for data clarification. A quality assessment of the included trial was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS Only one study (with 188 participants) was included in this review and was assessed as having a high risk of bias. This study provided limited data for dental caries outcomes (dmfs/DMFS increment) and economic cost outcomes (reported time taken to provide examinations and treatment). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial and harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients to attend for dental check-ups at 6-monthly intervals. It is important that high quality RCTs are conducted for the outcomes listed in this review in order to address the objectives of this review.

96 citations


Book
01 Jan 2004-
Abstract: Acknowledgements v Stakeholder Organisations vii Abbreviations used in Guideline ix 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 What is a guideline? 2 1.3 Remit of the Guideline 3 1.4 What the guideline covers 3 1.5 What the guideline does not cover 3 1.6 Who developed the guideline? 3 1.7 Guideline Methodology 4 1.7.1 Outline of methods used 4 1.7.2 Questions addressed in developing the guideline 4 1.7.3 Systematic Review Methods for Key Clinical Questions 5 1.7.4 Hierarchy of evidence 6 1.7.5 Health economics methods 6 1.7.6 Forming and grading the recommendations 7 2 Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine dental checks (HTA update) 9 2.1 Characteristics of the Included Studies 9 2.1.1 Characteristics of the study settings and study design 9 2.1.2 The accuracy of clinical oral examinations in detecting oral cancer and potentially malignant conditions 31 3.3.5 Toluidine blue dye 31 3.3.6 Potentially malignant lesions and conditions 31 3.4

79 citations


Cited by
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: ABI : ankle–brachial index ACCORD : Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ADVANCE : Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation AGREE : Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation AHA : American Heart Association apoA1 : apolipoprotein A1 apoB : apolipoprotein B CABG : coronary artery bypass graft surgery CARDS : Collaborative AtoRvastatin Diabetes Study CCNAP : Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions CHARISMA : Clopidogrel for High Athero-thrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilisation, Management, and Avoidance CHD : coronary heart disease CKD : chronic kidney disease COMMIT : Clopidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial CRP : C-reactive protein CURE : Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events CVD : cardiovascular disease DALYs : disability-adjusted life years DBP : diastolic blood pressure DCCT : Diabetes Control and Complications Trial ED : erectile dysfunction eGFR : estimated glomerular filtration rate EHN : European Heart Network EPIC : European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition EUROASPIRE : European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention through Intervention to Reduce Events GFR : glomerular filtration rate GOSPEL : Global Secondary Prevention Strategies to Limit Event Recurrence After MI GRADE : Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation HbA1c : glycated haemoglobin HDL : high-density lipoprotein HF-ACTION : Heart Failure and A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise TraiNing HOT : Hypertension Optimal Treatment Study HPS : Heart Protection Study HR : hazard ratio hsCRP : high-sensitivity C-reactive protein HYVET : Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial ICD : International Classification of Diseases IMT : intima-media thickness INVEST : International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril JTF : Joint Task Force LDL : low-density lipoprotein Lp(a) : lipoprotein(a) LpPLA2 : lipoprotein-associated phospholipase 2 LVH : left ventricular hypertrophy MATCH : Management of Atherothrombosis with Clopidogrel in High-risk Patients with Recent Transient Ischaemic Attack or Ischaemic Stroke MDRD : Modification of Diet in Renal Disease MET : metabolic equivalent MONICA : Multinational MONItoring of trends and determinants in CArdiovascular disease NICE : National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence NRT : nicotine replacement therapy NSTEMI : non-ST elevation myocardial infarction ONTARGET : Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial OSA : obstructive sleep apnoea PAD : peripheral artery disease PCI : percutaneous coronary intervention PROactive : Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events PWV : pulse wave velocity QOF : Quality and Outcomes Framework RCT : randomized clinical trial RR : relative risk SBP : systolic blood pressure SCORE : Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation Project SEARCH : Study of the Effectiveness of Additional Reductions in Cholesterol and SHEP : Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program STEMI : ST-elevation myocardial infarction SU.FOL.OM3 : SUpplementation with FOlate, vitamin B6 and B12 and/or OMega-3 fatty acids Syst-Eur : Systolic Hypertension in Europe TNT : Treating to New Targets UKPDS : United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study VADT : Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial VALUE : Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use VITATOPS : VITAmins TO Prevent Stroke VLDL : very low-density lipoprotein WHO : World Health Organization ### 1.1 Introduction Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a chronic disorder developing insidiously throughout life and usually progressing to an advanced stage by the time symptoms occur. It remains the major cause of premature death in Europe, even though CVD mortality has …

6,913 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: ABI : ankle–brachial (blood pressure) index ABPM : ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ACCORD : Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ACE-I : angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ACS : acute coronary syndromes ADVANCE : Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: PreterAx

3,475 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
09 Sep 2016-Kardiologia Polska
TL;DR: Authors/Task Force Members: Massimo F. Piepoli (Chairperson), Arno W. Hoes (Co-Chairperson) (The Netherlands), Stefan Agewall (Norway) 1, Christian Albus (Germany)9, Carlos Brotons (Spain)10, Alberico L. Catapano (Italy)3, Marie-Therese Cooney (Ireland)1, Ugo Corrà (Italy).
Abstract: Authors/Task Force Members: Massimo F. Piepoli* (Chairperson) (Italy), Arno W. Hoes* (Co-Chairperson) (The Netherlands), Stefan Agewall (Norway)1, Christian Albus (Germany)9, Carlos Brotons (Spain)10, Alberico L. Catapano (Italy)3, Marie-Therese Cooney (Ireland)1, Ugo Corrà (Italy)1, Bernard Cosyns (Belgium)1, Christi Deaton (UK)1, Ian Graham (Ireland)1, Michael Stephen Hall (UK)7, F. D. Richard Hobbs (UK)10, Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway)1, Herbert Löllgen (Germany)8, Pedro Marques-Vidal (Switzerland)1, Joep Perk (Sweden)1, Eva Prescott (Denmark)1, Josep Redon (Spain)5, Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece)1, Naveed Sattar (UK)2, Yvo Smulders (The Netherlands)1, Monica Tiberi (Italy)1, H. Bart van der Worp (The Netherlands)6, Ineke van Dis (The Netherlands)4, W. M. Monique Verschuren (The Netherlands)1

2,142 citations


17


Book
05 Jun 2013-
TL;DR: The knowledge and tools exist to put the health system on the right course to achieve continuous improvement and better quality care at a lower cost, and a better use of data is a critical element of a continuously improving health system.
Abstract: America's health care system has become too complex and costly to continue business as usual. Best Care at Lower Cost explains that inefficiencies, an overwhelming amount of data, and other economic and quality barriers hinder progress in improving health and threaten the nation's economic stability and global competitiveness. According to this report, the knowledge and tools exist to put the health system on the right course to achieve continuous improvement and better quality care at a lower cost.The costs of the system's current inefficiency underscore the urgent need for a systemwide transformation. About 30 percent of health spending in 2009--roughly $750 billion--was wasted on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs, fraud, and other problems. Moreover, inefficiencies cause needless suffering. By one estimate, roughly 75,000 deaths might have been averted in 2005 if every state had delivered care at the quality level of the best performing state. This report states that the way health care providers currently train, practice, and learn new information cannot keep pace with the flood of research discoveries and technological advances.About 75 million Americans have more than one chronic condition, requiring coordination among multiple specialists and therapies, which can increase the potential for miscommunication, misdiagnosis, potentially conflicting interventions, and dangerous drug interactions. Best Care at Lower Cost emphasizes that a better use of data is a critical element of a continuously improving health system, such as mobile technologies and electronic health records that offer significant potential to capture and share health data better. In order for this to occur, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, IT developers, and standard-setting organizations should ensure that these systems are robust and interoperable. Clinicians and care organizations should fully adopt these technologies, and patients should be encouraged to use tools, such as personal health information portals, to actively engage in their care.This book is a call to action that will guide health care providers; administrators; caregivers; policy makers; health professionals; federal, state, and local government agencies; private and public health organizations; and educational institutions.

1,236 citations


Journal ArticleDOI

[...]

01 Dec 2007-BMJ

1,096 citations


Network Information
Related Authors (3)
Helen V Worthington

453 papers, 26.7K citations

88% related
Jan E Clarkson

121 papers, 5K citations

86% related
Tony Fitzgerald

11 papers, 228 citations

60% related
Performance
Metrics

Author's H-index: 9

No. of papers from the Author in previous years
YearPapers
20181
20151
20141
20133
20122
20101

Top Attributes

Show by:

Author's top 4 most impactful journals

Australian Dental Journal

1 papers, 96 citations

Preventive Medicine

1 papers, 103 citations