Teledentistry for improving access to, and quality of oral health care: A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Digital technologies are becoming essential to address and optimize the suboptimal performance of healthcare systems. Teledentistry involves the use of information and communication technology to improve access to oral health care and the quality of oral health care delivery. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of teledentistry but with conflicting results. The aim of this review is to comprehensively summarize available SRs and provide evidence on the impact of teledentistry on access to oral care, patients and oral healthcare providers outcomes, quality of oral health care and costs. This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022373964). Six electronic databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Embase.com), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos will be searched for SRs of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed reviews evaluating teledentistry modalities involving both patients and/or oral health care providers (OHCPs). We will include only studies published in English or French. The primary outcomes will be considered from the patients perspective (e.g., access to oral health care, patient-reported outcomes, and experiences). The secondary outcomes will include outcomes from patients and OHCPs (e.g., clinical outcomes, safety, behaviors, and costs). Two independent reviewers will perform data screening, data extraction and will assess the quality of included studies using the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. Data will be synthesized narratively and presented by tables and graphs. We will report any overlap of primary studies in the SRs. A statement on the strength of evidence for each outcome will be provided if possible. This review will inform decision-makers, patients, OHCPs, and researchers on the potential effectiveness, benefits, and challenges of teledentistry and support them in making recommendations for its use. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations at conferences, and on social media.

4 74 reviews are a compelling means of synthesizing research, a systematic review of existing systematic 75 reviews (SRs) can provide a broader assessment of the quality and credibility of available evidence 76 [31, 32], and offer valuable information for patients, families, health professionals, researchers, and 77 policy-makers. The information generated by such overview can be used to enhance both clinical 78 practice and population health. In this study, we will use the term 'overview' due to the lack of 79 consistency in the literature on the terminology of the compilation data from multiple SRs to 80 provide a single summary of relevant evidence [33,34]. A published overview on teledentistry 81 evaluated its accuracy and effectiveness for the delivery of oral health care [35]. A major limitation 82 of this overview is the lack of risk of bias assessments of the included SRs. Moreover, it has only 83 focused on accuracy of screening, diagnosis, and therapeutic management of dental care outcomes.
84 Other health outcomes related to access to oral care (e.g., utilization of services) and patients' and 85 OHCPs' behaviors to improve the quality of oral healthcare would be important to consider to 86 inform practice, policy decision-making, and future research [36]. Another available overview is 87 limited to tele-orthodontics to improve compliance in orthodontic patients [37]. Therefore, there is a 88 need to address the gaps in literature by conducting a comprehensive overview of existing SRs 89 using a rigorous methodology with valid quality assessment of the evidence [38]. This proposed 90 overview of existing SRs aims to compile and contrast the existing evidence from systematic 91 reviews published on teledentistry [31]. Accurate information resulting from this overview will 92 assist decision-makers on the effectiveness of teledentistry and inform the development of 93 guidelines to support OHCPs in its implementation. 94 95 Research question 96 We will answer to the following research question: "From the perspective of a range of 97 stakeholders, to what extent is teledentistry effective in improving access to, and quality of oral 98 healthcare, while reducing related costs?" 99 Methods . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023.

Participants/Population
114 We will include SRs involving patients receiving oral healthcare services performed by any 115 licensed OHCPs (general dental practitioners, dental specialists, dental hygienists, dental 116 nurses/assistants, and dental therapists) and the SRs involving OHCPs with or without the patients.

118
Intervention 119 Teledentistry refers to use of information and communication technologies including the 120 transmission of clinical information and images between an oral health professional and patient or 121 between two health professionals, including at least one oral health professional, who are separated 122 by distance for dental consultations, diagnosis and treatment planning [18]. Teledentistry is a 123 modality used to provide remote access to healthcare services to patients. It includes the use of a 124 group of technologies and modalities, which can be categorized as follows [17]: i) Store and . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.23292218 doi: medRxiv preprint Outcomes 143 The primary outcomes are reported from the patients' perspective. They will include access to oral 144 health care (e.g. use of oral healthcare services, number of consultations, use in emergency cases, 145 delay of treatment, waiting time); patient-reported outcomes (e.g. oral health related-and overall 146 quality of life; self-reported clinical outcomes; pain management, oral functions; psychosocial 147 impact) and experiences with oral health care (e.g. satisfaction with care; communication with 148 OHCPs, patient-centered care and empowerment; acceptance and understanding of information and 149 confidence in the treatment, and experience with the technology such as ability to use the 150 application).
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023. Setting . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
180 181 Exclusion criteria 182 We will exclude any types of knowledge synthesis systematic reviews lacking a formal 183 methodological quality or risk of bias assessment or where a search was conducted in a single 184 database (26). We will exclude studies on teledentistry focusing only on education and training in 185 dentistry and research without a care delivery component. 190 strategy that has been developed using an interactive process by members of the research team with 191 the support of an expert librarian. The search strategy will be conducted from database inception 192 using the following keywords: ("teledentistry" OR "remote care*" OR "mobile health") AND 193 ("reviews" OR "meta-analysis" OR "systematic review). We will also perform a search in 194 Sociological Abstract (Proquest), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and Proquest Dissertations 195 & Theses. We will contact experts in the field by email if additional data are required. In addition, 196 we will check the reference lists of included SRs and any identified overviews for any eligible 197 articles. See S1 file for the search strategy conducted in Medline. We will update the search prior 198 to the publication of the review to identify any new relevant systematic reviews. There will be no 199 restrictions for countries, age of participants, publication date and settings. However, we will 200 consider only studies published in English or French because of the limited resources for 201 translation.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

225
2. Participants: number and profile of participants (e.g patients, OHCPs); . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023.

243
If we have missing data, we will search for additional information such as protocols or contact 244 study authors to find the available information. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.23292218 doi: medRxiv preprint 11 251 (the appraisal of internal validity) examines any concerns with the design, conduct, analysis, 252 interpretation, or reporting of a study which could affect the study's results [49].

254
To conduct the quality assessment, we will use two valid and reliable tools covering complementary

276
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.23292218 doi: medRxiv preprint 277 Despite the relevance of these tools and the growing number of reporting guidelines, they are 278 mostly for SRs of quantitative reviews and there is a lack of critical appraisal tools [52] to assess 279 the quality of SRs of qualitative studies [53]. In fact, some criteria from AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS 280 tools are not adapted for quality assessment of factors such as risk of bias, publication bias, 281 heterogeneity, meta-analysis in SRs of qualitative research [53]. However, we will use both these 282 tools to conduct the quality assessment within the limit of their utilization.

283
284 Two reviewers will independently assess each review using both tools. Any discrepancies will be 285 resolved by discussion or a consultation with a third reviewer. We will not perform any quality 286 assessment of primary studies in included reviews.

287
288 Data synthesis 289 We will perform a narrative synthesis of the data. We will present results in tabular form in tables 290 describing characteristics of included studies (e.g. first author's name, language of publication, 291 country, settings, year of publication, profile of participants, study purpose), information on 292 teledentistry (e.g. definition, teledentistry modalities), methods (e.g. SR with or without meta-293 analysis, type of analysis), additional results (e.g. assessment of quality, appraisal tool used, 294 heterogeneity of the results, and level of evidence), and outcomes (e.g. primary outcomes and 295 secondary outcomes from included studies). We will categorize the SRs into sub-groups, according 296 to the type of intervention such as teledentistry modalities. If possible, we will perform a narrative 297 synthesis of the subgroups.

299
An important concern in conducting an overview is the likelihood of overlap in primary studies 300 across included reviews, which may result in overestimates in results (36) and confuse clinicians 301 making decisions amongst competing interventions in their clinical practices. Thus, we will . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.23292218 doi: medRxiv preprint 13 302 summarize key details from the studies included and will not perform a meta-synthesis of included 303 meta-analyses. We will report any overlap between SRs in the tables as a matrix.

305
We will report the overall score of the two measurement tools (AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS), the level 306 of evidence from the credibility assessment, and the percentage overlap between primary studies 307 within included SRs and SR-meta-analysis (SR-MAs). 308 309 We will assess the certainty of evidence defined as any of evaluation of the totality or strength of 310 the evidence on the impact of teledentistry using the following criteria for credibility assessment as 311 proposed in four categories [38, 54]: Class I (Convincing evidence): associations with a statistical 312 significance of P-value < 10 −6 , include more than 1000 cases (or more than 20 000 participants for 313 continuous outcomes), have the largest component study reporting a significant result (P < 0.05), 314 have a 95% prediction interval that excludes the null, does not have large heterogeneity (I² < 50%), 315 and shows no evidence of small study effects (P > 0.10) and excess significance bias (P > 0.10); 316 Class II (Highly suggestive evidence): associations with a significance of P < 0.001, include more 317 than 1000 cases (or more than 20 000 participants for continuous outcomes), and have the largest 318 component study reporting a statistically significant result (P < 0.05); Class III (Suggestive 319 evidence): associations that report a significance of P < 0.01 with more than 1000 cases (or more 320 than 20000 participants for continuous outcomes); Class IV (Weak evidence): remaining significant 321 associations with P < 0.05. If we do not have sufficient data, we will analyse the certainty of 322 evidence using data reported in the included SRs.

324 Discussion
325 This review will contribute to a comprehensive body of knowledge on the potential effectiveness of 326 teledentistry. To our knowledge, this overview is the first concerning teledentistry that will include . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.23292218 doi: medRxiv preprint 14 327 a broad definition of teledentistry incorporating various modalities, participants, study designs, 328 types of SRs and a combination of evidence, thereby increasing the understanding of the potential 329 of teledentistry. This overview has implications for dental practice, policy, education and research.
330 Beyond using a broad definition of teledentistry, this review will provide valuable knowledge on 331 the use of digital technologies, including teledentistry, to improve oral health care systems.
332 Teledentistry can be used to enhance the quality of oral health care as well as enhance oral health 333 equity. The lack of high-quality information on the effectiveness of teledentistry has often been 334 reported as a strong barrier to its implementation. This review has the potential to close that gap and 335 will contribute to inform decision-makers, researchers, clinicians, and patients on the effectiveness 336 of teledentistry for the delivery of care and to improve patients' outcomes and experiences, as well 337 as inform the needs for the future research. For instance, results will highlight teledentistry's 338 benefits and challenges, thereby identifying where is could potentially be used. These findings may 339 also support the development and implementation of guidelines on teledentistry in clinical practice.

341
We anticipate some limitations. A first limitation relates to the overlap between the primary studies 342 included in more than one SR in our overview, which can cause an overestimation of the effects for 343 a given outcome. We will report the percentage of overlap between the included studies and will 344 discuss of the impact of the overlap on our results. The second limitation is the restriction of our 345 overview to SRs only, which could result in missing some relevant primary studies published 346 during the completion of our review. To mitigate this issue, we will repeat our search just before we 347 finish our manuscript and will identify any additional relevant published SRs, but we will only 348 include them if they fulfill our inclusion criteria. We will document and report any deviations to the 349 protocol during the review. In addition, we will mention any limitation in the lack of available 350 critical appraisal tool for any designs (quantitative, qualitative and mixed reviews) [53].

351
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023.  CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.23292218 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.23292218 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 5, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.23292218 doi: medRxiv preprint