A Descriptive Analysis of Oral Health Systematic Reviews Published 1991–2012: Cross Sectional Study (original) (raw)
Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry
The Journal of the American Dental Association, 2004
Background. Although systematic reviews are the backbone of evidence-based dentistry, they have appeared infrequently in the clinical dental literature and their importance may not be recognized by dentists. The authors describe the steps taken in systematic reviews and perform a literature survey to identify published systematic reviews of topics relevant to clinical dentistry. Methods. The authors searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases of systematic reviews and abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, as well as identified reviews that were known to the authors but not found in the searches. Systematic reviews included in this survey stated the intention to identify all relevant articles within predefined limitations, applied defined exclusion and inclusion criteria, and presented complete raw or synthesized data from included studies. Results. This literature survey identified 131 systematic reviews, 96 of which had direct clinical relevance. During the past 14 years, clinically relevant systematic reviews have been published with increasing frequency. These reviews vary in the types of studies included and the assessment of those studies. The results of the reviews also varied in their definitiveness, with 17 percent finding the evidence to be insufficient to answer the key question. An additional 50 percent of the 96 reviews hedged in answering the key question, by noting that the supporting evidence was weak in quality or limited in quantity. Conclusion. The number of systematic reviews that address clinical topics in dentistry is small but growing. However, the authors of more than one-half of these reviews believed that the evidence available to answer the key question was not strong. Clinical Implications. As systematic reviews continue to grow, dentistry will become better informed about the adequacy and congruence of the scientific evidence underpinning clinical practice.
Quality Assessment of Clinical Trials Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews
2021
Background: Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were assessed.Methods: All the trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were identified and examined. The RoB was evaluated for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study based on the criteria in Cochrane’s RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each intended variable.Results: In a total of 2565 included studies, the majority (n=1600) had 50 or higher sample sizes. As for blinding, 907 studies were labelled as double-blind. Performance bias showed the highest rate of high risk (31.4%). Almost half of the studies had a high ORoB compared to 11.1% with low ORoB. The studies that used placebos had higher low ORoB (14.8% vs 10.7%). The double-blind studies had the highest low ORoB (23.6%). The studies...
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018
To evaluate whether the reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews is reproducible. A survey of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016 was conducted. Study selection was performed independently by two authors, and the reproducibility of the selection process was assessed using a tool consisting of 12 criteria. Regression analyses were implemented to evaluate any associations between degrees of reporting (measured by the number of items positively answered) and journal impact factor (IF), presence of meta-analysis, and number of citations of the systematic review in Google Scholar. Five hundred and thirty systematic reviews were identified. Following our 12 criteria, none of the systematic reviews had complete reporting of the search strategies and selection process. Eight (1.5%) systematic reviews reported the list of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) after titl...
The Journal of the American Dental Association, 2016
ystematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled clinical trials are considered to be a criterion standard form of evidence to indicate the efficacy and effectiveness of therapeutic interventions in health sciences. 1 The authors of systematic reviews use a comprehensive search strategy to identify all potentially relevant trials, predefine eligibility criteria to minimize the impact of bias in study selection, and use reproducible methods to assess the risk of bias found in individual trials and to consider that risk when synthesizing their results. 2 As with any research design, the value of a systematic review depends on how well its authors conduct and report the results. The endorsement by journal editors, reviewers, and authors of reporting guidelines such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement 3 has resulted in increases in both the reporting and the methodological quality of published reviews. 4 In the area of oral health, approximately 50 dentistry-related trials are published per month, and this number increases every year. 5 Similarly, the number of systematic reviews published in oral health and within dental
Use of guidelines to improve the quality and transparency of reporting oral health research
Journal of Dentistry, 2015
Dentistry Oral health a b s t r a c t Objective: The use of reporting guideline is directed at enhancing the completeness and transparency of biomedical publications. The aims of this paper are to present some of the key initiatives and guidelines providing indications and directions on the use of specific tools in oral health research. Methods: The EQUATOR Network and five established guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE and SPIRIT) are introduced.
Characteristics of systematic reviews published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors
Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2019
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the reporting and conduct characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors and compare reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs with the rest of the world. METHODS: A search in PubMed was performed to identify SRs published in dentistry in 2017 assessing different aspects of oral heath irrespective of the design of included studies. From this dataset, a subgroup analysis was performed considering only SRs published by Brazilian corresponding authors. Study screening was performed by two researchers independently, while for data extraction, one of three reviewers extracted details related to reporting and conduct of SRs. The completeness of reporting of 24 characteristics, included in the PRISMA Statement of the SRs classified as treatment/therapeutic, was evaluated comparing Brazilian SR to SRs from all other countries. RESULTS: We included 117 SRs with Brazilian corresponding authors. The ...
A Descriptive Analysis of Clinical Articles Published in the Last 50 Years in the Dental Literature
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Aims: This article describes the methodologies used in the dental literature and described how these approaches have changed over time. Materials and methods: Thirty-three ISI peer-reviewed journals were included in the analyses. Data were extracted independently by 11 investigators and in duplicate. Any differences in the results were resolved via discussion or by a third reviewer when necessary. Data were collected regarding the methodology used in the article, and dental specialty related to different study designs. In the case in which more than one study design or specialty was reported, reviewers were trained to identify the main methodology/specialty. Results: The majority (36.96%) used a case report (CR) as the primary methodology, followed by a clinical trial (CT) (18.21%) or randomized CT (15.11%). The least used methodologies included a cohort (COH) study (6.07%) or a systematic review (SA)/meta-analysis (MA) (6.73%). Periodontology published the highest number of case controls (CCs) (46.8%), randomized CTs (RCTs) (29.9%), cross-sectional (CS) studies (26.0%), SRs/MAs (19.8%), and CTs (17.1%). Oral and maxillofacial surgery published the highest number of CRs/case series (54.5%) and COH studies (30.5%), whereas operative dentistry published the lowest number of CRs/case series (0.7%), CCs (2.9%), and SRs/MAs (2.3%). CRs/case series retain the highest number of publications across all time points in the dental literature overall. Conclusion: Our results indicate an improvement in the types of research and the pyramid of evidence, which will help in applying evidencebased dentistry (EBD) in clinical decision-making. Clinical significance: Types of studies used in the dental field are not yet investigated. Thus, little is known about the common study design types in dental literature. This can affect the decision made regarding technique, risk factors, prevention, or treatment.
Journal of Oral Health & Oral Epidemiology
The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and case reports dealing with oral health and epidemiology. Papers in any of the following fields will be considered for publication: oral health, oral and dental treatment research, oral and dental epidemiology, as well as any issues regarding improvement of oral and dental treatment. EDITORIAL REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE The editorial board considers all medical research studies based on ICMJE recommendations about the conduction, reporting, and editing of these investigations. The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the research and its significance to the journal readership. Except for invited papers, submitted manuscripts are peer reviewed by three anonymous reviewers, and the journal's editorial board. Final acceptance or rejection is depending on the editorial board decision on peer reviewed papers. Manuscripts should be written in a clear, concise and direct style. The Editoria...