Evidence-based practice and the evidence pyramid: A 21st century orthodontic odyssey (original) (raw)
Related papers
Evidence-based Orthodontics: Where do I find the Evidence?
Journal of Orthodontics, 2000
(see below). Updates on reviews distributed to members Dissemination, University of effectiveness of health care of interested groups. York, Heslington, York, interventions based on high quality YO10 5DD. reviews. Extensively peer reviewed by subject area experts and practitioners. Presented in a readable, user friendly style.
The European Journal of Orthodontics, 2015
The aim of this study was to explore demographic characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses (MAs), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in orthodontic journals with an impact factor (IF). Materials and methods: An electronic search was developed and implemented to identify all the SRs, MAs, and RCTs published in the seven orthodontic journals with an IF. No restrictions were applied regarding language, publication date, or publication status. The initial search generated 1147 articles, which were reviewed by three authors in order to determine if they met the inclusion criteria. Five hundred and fifty-seven articles were included in the final analysis. Type of article, name of journal, year of publication, number of authors, country of origin, and primary affiliation were recorded. Associations between those parameters were tested with the Pearson chi-square test for independence at the 0.05 level of significance. Results: The majority (72%) of this kind of articles published in the orthodontic literature were RCTs, followed by SRs (20.1%) and MAs (7.9%). Approximately 77.2% of all RCTs, SRs, and MAs were published between 2004 and 2013, and 72.9% came from orthodontic departments. More than 80% of all articles were collaborative efforts between three or more authors. Contributions from Asia, South and Central America significantly increased during last decade, while contributions from North America decreased by almost 30%. Conclusions: Most RCTs, MAs, and SRs have been published between 2004 and 2013, indicating a significant improvement of the orthodontic literature during the last decade. Asia, South and Central America have significantly increased their contributions to the high evidence orthodontic literature since 2004.
Sri Lankan Journal of Orthodontics, 2018
Present day orthodontic practitioners are more aware and have a greater understanding regarding the importance of integrating evidence-based research findings with their clinical practice. However when it comes to implementing these findings in reality, most important barriers are stated to be either a poor understanding of evidence-based practice or ambiguous and conflicting research. The numerous systematic reviews and meta-analysis that are regularly conducted, often times conclude that there is insufficient data in orthodontic literature to get clear answers. These issues in orthodontic research often create a perception of lack of clarity and information for practical implementation of Evidence-based Orthodontics (EBO). With an objective to facilitate better understanding and application of EBO in day-to-day clinical routine, this commentary presents an elaborate elucidation of the underlying principles of an evidence-based practice. It will provide insights into the different types of orthodontic study designs, with particular emphasis on systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis. A section on Cochrane systematic reviews, considered to be the most rigorous types producing the most reliable evidence, is also included along with the current Cochrane evidence on the management of skeletal malocclusion in Orthodontics. The often encountered issues, which inhibit clinicians from adopting EBP are also addressed and suggestions to overcome the barriers are also provided.
Endodontic Topics, 2014
This review defines evidence-based practice and discusses how the concept has been applied to endodontics. The focus is on treatment procedures in endodontics. The means used in the process and how far our knowledge base has reached are addressed. Aspects are also conveyed as to what future research in clinical endodontics should take into account.
Overview of registered studies in orthodontics: Evaluation of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry
American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 2014
The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 made it mandatory for all phase II through IV trials regulated by this Act to be registered. After this, the National Institutes of Health created ClinicalTrials.gov, which is a registry of publicly and privately supported clinical studies of human participants. The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of registered studies in orthodontics. The ClinicalTrials.gov Web site was used to query all registered orthodontic studies. The search term used was "orthodontics." No limitations were placed for the time period. All registered studies regardless of their recruitment status, study results, and study type were selected for analysis. A total of 64 orthodontic studies were registered as of January 1, 2014. Of these, 52 were interventional, and 12 were observational. Close to 60% of the interventional studies and 66.7% of the observational studies had sample sizes of 50 or fewer subjects. About 21....
European journal of orthodontics, 2015
Summary AIM : To analyse meta-analyses included in systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) focusing on orthodontic literature and to assess the quality of the existing evidence. Electronic searching was undertaken to identify SRs published in five major orthodontic journals and the CDSR between January 2000 and June 2014. Quality assessment of the overall body of evidence from meta-analyses was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE) tool. One hundred and fifty-seven SRs were identified; meta-analysis was present in 43 of these (27.4 per cent). The highest proportion of SRs that included a meta-analysis was found in Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (6/13; 46.1 per cent), followed by the CDSR (12/33; 36.4 per cent) and the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (15/44; 34.1 per cent). Class II treatment was ...