Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in ​Endodontics (PRIDASE): Guidance to improve manuscripts assessing the diagnostic accuracy of procedures, techniques and devices

For centuries, diagnosis in Medicine and Dentistry has been considered more of an art than a science, intuitive skill that could only be mastered by experienced clinicians. Indeed, it was impossible to develop standardized, practical, operationalized diagnostic criteria. Understanding the cognitive processes underlying procedures improved recently, is now recognized rather being mysterious, proficiency dependent largely on nonanalytic pattern recognition (Loveday et al., 2013). This product practice reflection, often subconscious, relating feedback from earlier clinical trials. Not surprisingly, experience brings increased confidence efficiency, but reliable scheme-based analytic strategies can also learned beginners (Coderre 2003), which helpful when teaching students how approach complex task diagnostics. Diagnostic algorithms based commonly agreed disease definitions criteria are highly successful correctly identify disease. In Medicine, this major step forward as agreement standardized potential vastly improve research possibilities, similar way experimental interventions treat follow strict methodological protocols randomized That said, not without controversy, differences opinion remain exact characteristics certain condition, best it. Endodontics struggling with same issues. The endodontic nomenclature, debated for many years, ambiguous lacks global consensus specific common disorders. example, term irreversible pulpitis should mean level pulp inflammation such necrosis inevitable complete removal pulpectomy or extraction prescribed therapy. Currently, generally used simply description set signs symptoms assumed represent severe state entire pulp, reality does necessarily reflect differing levels may exist between superficial (pulp horns) deep (radicular) portions pulp. A comprehensive systematic review concluded scientific evidence insufficient determine if (such presence, character persistence toothache) response stimuli heightened sensibility testing thermal provocation) provide valid information about true (histopathological) status (Mejare 2012). would suggest pulps diagnosed irreversibly inflamed managed conservatively vice versa. On level, lead overtreatment (unnecessary root canal treatment [RCT]), although prognosis RCT good, unnecessary RCTs avoided, data population basis indicating one tooth ten extracted within 5–6 years after (Fransson 2016). addition, indiscriminate labelling lack focused development innovative therapies preservation These compelling reasons why diagnostics need accurate precise possible, order achieve this, studies investigating accuracy methodologically robust meticulously reported. It likely experts, clinicians researchers caused evidence. To address must start collecting necessary systematically. One algorithm, those other medical areas. An example Criteria Temporomandibular Disorders (DC-TMD) pain-related diagnoses. Using combination anamnestic findings (the history) examinations, possible 80–86% cases 97–98% non-cases inter-examiner reliability ≥85% (Schiffman 2014). However, straightforward; prerequisite building algorithm known predictive properties value each item process known. there relative paucity Endodontics, majority existing demonstrating low quality reporting compounded flaws. due published having undertaken at time little awareness effect errors results. still means our current methods reassess their various populations, well developing new tests. include aspects differential value. test designed reveal condition ideally reliably distinguish periapical disease, exclude all conditions overlapping presentations, pain TMD post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain, both mimic painful (Baad-Hansen, 2008; Baad-Hansen & Benoliel, 2017; Wright, 2000). issue manuscripts brought into focus emergence reviews literature, journals stipulating authors submit checklists. generic area as, PRIRATE 2020 guidelines trials (Nagendrababu 2020a) CONSORT 2010 (Schulz 2010) Preferred Reporting items OBservational observational 2020b) STROBE (von Elm 2007). As studies, risk bias shortcomings design conduct (Cohen Some difficult overcome; clinically available noninvasive reference standard particularly challenging. Another difficulty large variation settings patient groups. regard, patients present spectrum few clear thresholds affected fatigue, systemic mental health states affect descriptions (history) responses testing. great care taken describe prevalence readers able results study extrapolated practice, consideration described above. significant number papers transparency completeness reporting, meaning itself determine. Although mainly aim submitted publication, they immensely designing easily avoided. Being aware flaws previous taking minimize research. Standards Accuracy Studies (STARD) developed 2003 updated 2015, STARD 2015 (Bossuyt 2015). Based several specialized have published, STARDdem (STARD dementia; Cochrane Dementia Cognitive Improvement Group), STARD-BLCM (Standards use Bayesian Latent Class Models) STRADAS-paraTB Animal paratuberculosis; Gardner 2011; Kostoulas Noel-Storr International Endodontic Journal, followed Items (PRIDASE) presented, modified adapted fit nature whilst incorporating principles Clinical Laboratory Images Publication (CLIP) (Lang purpose PRIDASE accuracy, transparency, reproducibility specialty Endodontology. We hope field will benefit clearer future positive developments general, ‘diagnostic accuracy’ interchangeably efficacy’ efficiency’. Hence, documents related guidelines.