FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1715492734> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1715492734 endingPage "1115" @default.
• W1715492734 startingPage "1113" @default.
• W1715492734 abstract "We read with great interest the recent article “Diagnosis and Management of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: A Systematic Review and International Consensus” by Khan and colleagues.1 Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a potentially severe adverse side effect of antiresorptive agents, and although a significant body of literature has been produced, there remains little evidence-based guidance for clinicians with respect to most aspects of this disease. Therefore, we applaud the attempt of Khan and colleagues to provide a much-needed systematic review. However, it is important that any review on this topic is addressed on the basis of the best available evidence and a balanced analysis of the literature. More importantly, systematic reviews require rigorous research methods and a clear and transparent presentation of results in order to limit bias and maximize readability.2-4 In the work of Khan and colleagues,1 we have identified several issues that we suggest carry a risk of affecting the validity of their results. Assessing the risk of bias is a crucial part of systematic reviews.5, 6 Khan and colleagues presented the criteria they used to assign level of evidence and grade recommendations, but unfortunately provided little information regarding qualitative assessment of reviewed studies, related risk of bias, as well as the process of article selection. Overall, it is hard to understand how and why articles were selected or excluded. The presentation of data on incidence and prevalence makes the interpretation of the results difficult. It is well established that incidence data without definition of a time period can be meaningless;7 nevertheless, results upon incidence of MRONJ are in several instances presented without mentioning the relevant time frame. There are also inconsistencies between different sections of the article: For example, in the abstract, it is stated that “in the osteoporosis patient population MRONJ incidence is estimated at 0.001 to 0.01%,” whereas different figures are reported in the results (0.15% to <0.001% person-years of exposure). Furthermore, the authors state that the prevalence of MRONJ in the oncological setting ranges from “0 to 0.186%” whereas the work of Walter and colleagues, which they cite, reports a prevalence of 18.6%.8 Khan and colleagues report that the incidence of MRONJ in the osteoporosis population would only be “marginally higher than the incidence in the general population,” which in the abstract is reported to be <0.001%.1 This statement is quite confusing because it remains unclear what they mean by “incidence of jaw necrosis in the general population.” Possibly the authors refer to other disorders that may cause jaw necrosis in the absence of antiresorptive therapy. We wonder whether it is appropriate to associate different populations with different disorders when incidence/prevalence is discussed in a systematic review. Also, we could not find any clear reference in the text supporting the reported <0.001% incidence; it remains uncertain where this figure comes from. We also found it singular and rather unusual for a systematic review to provide a detailed description of an unrelated, poorly characterized, and not widely accepted disease entity, namely oral ulceration and bone sequestration (OUBS).1 Its relevance to the intended systematic review on MRONJ remains unclear. The articles cited in the main part of the paper (Introduction)9-11 do not provide convincing evidence regarding the impact this questionable disease may have upon patients, and certainly they cannot suggest that a significant portion of cases of MRONJ could, in fact, represent misdiagnosed OUBS. The definition of MRONJ continues to cause significant controversy. Khan and colleagues seem to disregard the suggestions of different independent research groups who have called for a change in the traditional definition12 so as to include the nonexposed variant of MRONJ,13-23 which can represent up to 25% of all cases.13 We wonder whether the authors concluded that these articles were in some way flawed and, therefore, had to be excluded from the systematic review. It is also rather surprising that they decided not to embrace the revised 2014 AAOMS consensus, which agrees that individuals presenting with bone that can be probed via sinus tracts do fit MRONJ definition.24 With respect to MRONJ treatment, readers would expect a systematic review to provide a balanced and fair comparison of the outcomes of different interventions, both surgical and nonsurgical. However, Khan and colleagues suggest that “conservative therapy is the mainstay of care” with no robust convincing evidence in support of this statement. Although we agree that there is a lack of consensus, as well as very little information on the outcomes of denosumab-related ONJ, we think that this review does not provide a fair and comprehensive summary of current knowledge and available evidence. For example, when mucosal healing is considered the primary outcome,25-28 a number of articles have reported that less than one-third of patients managed with long-term conservative treatment, especially in the oncological setting, would show evidence of mucosal healing (23% and 14.9% of Hoff and colleagues29 and Nicolatou-Galitis and colleagues30 case series, respectively). This means that the majority of MRONJ patients managed conservatively would present persistent jawbone exposure, which not only can affect their quality of life31 but may also limit the oncological treatment options, including further antiresorptive treatment.32, 33 Although conservative treatment might be adequate to slow down disease progression and control pain and infections, there is increasing evidence supporting surgical treatment protocols. Case series from different research groups report percentages of mucosal healing that are consistently around and above 80%, with outcome endpoints ranging from 3 months to 7 years post-treatment. Examples include Carlson and colleagues (92%), 26 Stockmann and colleagues (89%), 34 Bedogni and colleagues (90%), 35 Schubert and colleagues (89%), 36 and Jacobsen and colleagues (78%). 37 Comparative studies also seem to confirm these results.38, 39 Finally, both the systematic review by Rupel and colleagues40 and another recent systematic review meeting PRISMA guidelines6 suggest that surgical therapy can be superior to conservative management.41 We feel that these are important aspects completing the review of Khan and colleagues.1" @default.
• W1715492734 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5002080774 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5011851398 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5015565654 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5015883457 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5016460560 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5023100555 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5025486771 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5032185615 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5039822320 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5048387559 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5048885585 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5054075776 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5054263564 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5057610879 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5060127131 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5062414404 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5064797001 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5067216676 @default.
• W1715492734 creator A5072399963 @default.
• W1715492734 date "2015-05-18" @default.
• W1715492734 modified "2023-10-05" @default.
• W1715492734 title "Comments on “Diagnosis and Management of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: A Systematic Review and International Consensus”" @default.
• W1715492734 cites W1532344611 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W1957467225 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W1972216430 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W1989040196 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W1991566991 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W1999024824 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2016215015 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2018471775 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2019600796 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2023571467 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2026396249 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2037663275 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2050959721 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2052573161 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2056177471 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2056637909 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2056966378 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2058889454 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2061772303 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2075716878 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2076370157 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2082168107 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2087982795 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2103999028 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2107318775 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2128790071 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2131762314 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2132662418 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2139150245 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2140716907 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2142922410 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2146748822 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2149691866 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W2161190589 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W3022903699 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W4239901602 @default.
• W1715492734 cites W4300497141 @default.
• W1715492734 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2525" @default.
• W1715492734 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25988662" @default.
• W1715492734 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1715492734 type Work @default.
• W1715492734 sameAs 1715492734 @default.
• W1715492734 citedByCount "25" @default.
• W1715492734 countsByYear W17154927342015 @default.
• W1715492734 countsByYear W17154927342016 @default.
• W1715492734 countsByYear W17154927342017 @default.
• W1715492734 countsByYear W17154927342018 @default.
• W1715492734 countsByYear W17154927342019 @default.
• W1715492734 countsByYear W17154927342020 @default.
• W1715492734 countsByYear W17154927342021 @default.
• W1715492734 countsByYear W17154927342022 @default.
• W1715492734 countsByYear W17154927342023 @default.
• W1715492734 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5002080774 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5011851398 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5015565654 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5015883457 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5016460560 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5023100555 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5025486771 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5032185615 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5039822320 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5048387559 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5048885585 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5054075776 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5054263564 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5057610879 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5060127131 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5062414404 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5064797001 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5067216676 @default.
• W1715492734 hasAuthorship W1715492734A5072399963 @default.
• W1715492734 hasBestOaLocation W17154927341 @default.
• W1715492734 hasConcept C141071460 @default.

• next