The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the emerging literature and to synthesise evidence on a putative link between poor periodontal health and COPD exacerbations to inform research and clinical practice.
The systematic review is reported using the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO framework to address the following clinical question: “Does poor periodontal health increase the frequency of exacerbations in patients with COPD? The following PICO model was used for selection of studies: Population: Adult patients with COPD; Exposure: poor periodontal health Comparison: good periodontal health; Outcomes: reduced frequency of COPD exacerbations.
The PROSPERO registration number CRD42020180328.
Information sources and search strategy
Electronic database searches were undertaken using a combination of key search words (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, exacerbation, reduced lung function, hospitalisation(s), quality of life, oral hygiene, periodontitis, and gingivitis). These MESH search items and search strategy (Supplementary Table 1) were developed for the MEDLINE search and adopted for other electronic databases. Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched in May 2020 with no language restriction. To ensure literature saturation, reference lists of included studies were checked for eligible studies.
Study Selection Process
The studies eligible for inclusion were randomised clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, retrospective case control studies and cohort studies. Studies were considered if they included adult participants (≥ 18yrs) diagnosed with COPD, provided details of acute exacerbations of COPD, and included an assessment of the periodontal condition including oral hygiene and periodontal disease indices. Animal studies, non-clinical research, expert opinion, reviews, and studies not available in full text version were excluded.
The primary outcome was reduced frequency of COPD exacerbations associated with periodontal health or as a result of improved periodontal health in response to treatment. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, reduction in hospital admissions and treatment costs. The PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1) illustrates the selection process. For screening and assessment of eligibility criteria, titles and abstracts were screened by two assessors independently (NK, IEK). Full texts were obtained for all studies that met the inclusion criteria or when the abstract did not contain sufficient information to decide on the selection criteria. Full-text articles were assessed independently for inclusion in the review by three assessors (NK, LW, and IEK).
Quality assessment of included studies
The methodological quality of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for case-control studies and an adaptation of this scale [27] for cross-sectional studies. The quality of randomised controlled trials was assessed using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [28]. A high or low risk of bias was assigned to an individual study when there was evidence or absence of the following variables; selection bias, detailed allocation information, performance bias, detection details, attrition details, selective reporting bias or “other bias” that did not fall into any of the listed categories. Unclear risk of bias was assigned when there was insufficient information to permit judgment of ‘high’ or ‘low’ risk; when the risk of bias is genuinely unknown despite sufficient information about the conduct or when an entry is not relevant to a study. The risk of bias and quality of studies was assessed independently by three assessors (NK, LW, IEK). Furthermore, the evidence level for each of the included studies was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendations (http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/).
Data extraction and analysis
Data were extracted using custom-designed forms (adopted from the Cochrane library). Extracted data included; the type of study, number and demographics of participants, COPD diagnosis, periodontal health parameters, respiratory outcomes, intervention/exposure, funding source, duration of follow-up, location of the study, quality of life assessment and hospitalisation. The final data included for analysis were agreed by three authors (NK, LW, IEK) and any differences of opinion were resolved by further discussion. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs no meta-analysis was performed. Narrative synthesis of included studies outlining the primary outcome (frequency of COPD exacerbations) and secondary outcomes (QOL and hospitalisations) was included.