Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry

被引:49
作者
Bader, J
Ismail, A
机构
[1] Univ N Carolina, Sch Dent, Dept Operat Dent, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[2] Univ Michigan, Sch Dent, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[3] Univ Michigan, Sch Publ Hlth, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
D O I
10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0212
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
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 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. The results of the reviews also varied in their definitiveness, with 17 percent finding the evidence to be insufficient to answer 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.
引用
收藏
页码:464 / 473
页数:10
相关论文
共 105 条
  • [1] Aelbers CMF, 1996, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V110, P513
  • [2] Ahmad N, 1997, Anesth Prog, V44, P119
  • [3] Albougy H A, 2002, SADJ, V57, P457
  • [4] *AM DENT ASS, 2003, ADA POL EV BAS DENT
  • [5] [Anonymous], SYSTEMATIC REV SYNTH
  • [6] [Anonymous], ACUPUNCT MED
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2001, Systematic Reviews in Health Care
  • [8] [Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY
  • [9] [Anonymous], 2002, SYSTEMS RATE STRENGT
  • [10] METAANALYSIS OF SURGICAL VERSUS NONSURGICAL METHODS OF TREATMENT FOR PERIODONTAL-DISEASE
    ANTCZAKBOUCKOMS, A
    JOSHIPURA, K
    BURDICK, E
    TULLOCH, JFC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1993, 20 (04) : 259 - 268