The Wiley Online Proofing System allows proof reviewers to review PDF proofs, mark corrections, respond to queries, upload replacement figures, and submit these changes directly from the locally saved PDF proof. To ensure the best experience, reviewers must be connected to the internet to allow the PDF proof to connect to the central Wiley Online Proofing System server. If connected, a green check mark icon will appear in the yellow banner. Reviewers should review the article proof on the following pages and mark any corrections, changes, and query responses using the Annotation Tools. Corrections can be saved by clicking the "Publish Comments" button in the yellow banner. Corrections don't have to be marked in one sitting; reviewers can publish comments and log back in later to add and publish more comments before clicking the "Complete Proof Review" button. If additional or replacement files larger than 5 MB are needed, they should be uploaded using the "Upload Files" button. Required software to e-annotate PDFs is Adobe Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader (version 8.0 or above). The latest version of Acrobat Reader can be downloaded for free. Once Adobe Reader is open, the Comment tab (right-hand panel or under the Tools menu) should be used for annotations. The tools for annotating proofs include Replace, Strikethrough, Comment, Insert, Attach File, Add Stamp, and Drawing Markups. Reviewers should ensure all author queries are replied to and all corrections are published before clicking "Complete Proof Review," as any unpublished comments will be lost. Once "Complete Proof Review" is clicked, no additional corrections can be added or published. The system also includes instructions on how to use the various annotation tools for marking up proofs. The editorial section discusses the use of network meta-analysis in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare different treatment approaches for orofacial pain. It highlights the importance of critically evaluating the risk of publication bias and the strength of included RCTs. The editorial concludes that network meta-analysis can provide a ranking of different treatment approaches and is a valuable tool for decision-making in clinical practice. The Author Query Form asks authors to respond to queries by marking up proofs with necessary changes and additions, following the conventions shown on the attached corrections sheet.The Wiley Online Proofing System allows proof reviewers to review PDF proofs, mark corrections, respond to queries, upload replacement figures, and submit these changes directly from the locally saved PDF proof. To ensure the best experience, reviewers must be connected to the internet to allow the PDF proof to connect to the central Wiley Online Proofing System server. If connected, a green check mark icon will appear in the yellow banner. Reviewers should review the article proof on the following pages and mark any corrections, changes, and query responses using the Annotation Tools. Corrections can be saved by clicking the "Publish Comments" button in the yellow banner. Corrections don't have to be marked in one sitting; reviewers can publish comments and log back in later to add and publish more comments before clicking the "Complete Proof Review" button. If additional or replacement files larger than 5 MB are needed, they should be uploaded using the "Upload Files" button. Required software to e-annotate PDFs is Adobe Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader (version 8.0 or above). The latest version of Acrobat Reader can be downloaded for free. Once Adobe Reader is open, the Comment tab (right-hand panel or under the Tools menu) should be used for annotations. The tools for annotating proofs include Replace, Strikethrough, Comment, Insert, Attach File, Add Stamp, and Drawing Markups. Reviewers should ensure all author queries are replied to and all corrections are published before clicking "Complete Proof Review," as any unpublished comments will be lost. Once "Complete Proof Review" is clicked, no additional corrections can be added or published. The system also includes instructions on how to use the various annotation tools for marking up proofs. The editorial section discusses the use of network meta-analysis in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare different treatment approaches for orofacial pain. It highlights the importance of critically evaluating the risk of publication bias and the strength of included RCTs. The editorial concludes that network meta-analysis can provide a ranking of different treatment approaches and is a valuable tool for decision-making in clinical practice. The Author Query Form asks authors to respond to queries by marking up proofs with necessary changes and additions, following the conventions shown on the attached corrections sheet.