<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Cushley S</submitter><funding>HSC R&amp;D Division, Public Health Agency</funding><pagination>891-909</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9545459</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>55(9)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>A large number of research reports on vital pulp treatment (VPT) has been published over the last two decades. However, heterogeneity in reporting outcomes of VPT is a significant challenge for evidence synthesis and clinical decision-making.&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>To identify outcomes assessed in VPT studies and to evaluate how and when outcomes are measured. A subsidiary aim was to assess evidence for selective reporting bias in the included studies. The results of this review will be used to inform the development of a core outcome set (COS) for endodontic treatments.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Multiple healthcare bibliographic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science were searched for systematic reviews publi</pubmed_abstract><journal>International endodontic journal</journal><pubmed_title>Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on vital pulp treatment: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9545459</pmcid><funding_grant_id>EAT/5579/19</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>El Karim I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cushley S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lundy FT</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Duncan HF</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Nagendrababu V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Clarke M</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on vital pulp treatment: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>A large number of research reports on vital pulp treatment (VPT) has been published over the last two decades. However, heterogeneity in reporting outcomes of VPT is a significant challenge for evidence synthesis and clinical decision-making.&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>To identify outcomes assessed in VPT studies and to evaluate how and when outcomes are measured. A subsidiary aim was to assess evidence for selective reporting bias in the included studies. The results of this review will be used to inform the development of a core outcome set (COS) for endodontic treatments.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Multiple healthcare bibliographic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science were searched for systematic reviews publi</description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022 Sep</publication><modification>2025-04-19T04:47:51.577Z</modification><creation>2025-04-19T04:47:51.577Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9545459</accession><cross_references><pubmed>35704241</pubmed><doi>10.1111/iej.13785</doi></cross_references></HashMap>