Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry

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.     

多系统评价评估问卷量表在口腔医学领域中文系统评价应用中的信度和效度评价

目的 评价多系统评价评估问卷（AMSTAR）量表应用于口腔医学领域中文系统评价中的一致性、信度和效度。方法 计算机检索中国生物医学文献数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库和中国期刊全文数据库,截止日期为 2011年3月1日。手工检索19种中文口腔医学杂志,检索已发表的口腔医学类系统评价。2名评价者分别用总体质量 评估问卷（OQAQ）量表和AMSTAR量表对系统评价进行评价,计算观察者间使用AMSTAR量表的Kappa值,AMSTAR 量表重测信度的级内相关系数（ICC）以及AMSTAR和OQAQ量表得分的最大得分百分比的级内相关系数（结构效度）。 结果 纳入52篇系统评价文献。评价者使用AMSTAR量表的Kappa值为0.81[95%C（I 0.73,0.89）],使用OQAQ量表的 Kappa 值为0.74 [95% CI（0.66,0.83）] 。 重测信度的ICC 为 0.98 [95% CI（0.97,0.99）,P =0.000]。 内部一致性信度Cronbach’α为0.69[95%CI（0.56,0.80）,P=0.000]。AMSTAR和OQAQ量表最大得分百分比的ICC为0.94[95%CI（0.90, 0.97）,P=0.000]。结论 AMSTAR量表在应用于口腔医学领域系统评价时有很好的一致性、信度和效度。AMSTAR 量表可很好的推广至口腔医学领域进行系统评价的方法学质量评价,为医务工作者进行系统评价方法学质量评价时带来了较大的便利。     

The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness of interventions in dentistry. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of interventions for oral, dental and craniofacial disorders and diseases. Sixty-five reviews were identified and assessed independently by two reviewers. The area most frequently evaluated within the reviews was pain relief/prevention (20/65, 31%) followed by caries and oral medicine. The quality assessment of the identified systematic reviews highlighted key areas where improvements could be made. One major weakness of the reviews was that the search strategies employed were not always adequate. Only 12 reviews (19%) demonstrated an attempt to identify all relevant studies. Other areas of weakness include the screening and quality assessment of primary studies, the pooling of data and examination of heterogeneity, and the interpretation of findings. This investigation shows that the quality of systematic reviews in dentistry could be improved. If future clinical decisions are to be based upon systematic reviews, it is imperative that the reviews address clinically relevant, focused questions and follow a 'transparent', well-designed protocol.     

Class II functional orthopaedic treatment: a systematic review of systematic reviews

This Systematic Review (SR) aims to assess the quality of SRs and Meta‐Analyses (MAs) on functional orthopaedic treatment of Class II malocclusion and to summarise and rate the reported effects. Electronic and manual searches were conducted until June 2014. SRs and MAs focusing on the effects of functional orthopaedic treatment of Class II malocclusion in growing patients were included. The methodological quality of the included papers was assessed using the AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews). The design of the primary studies included in each SR was assessed with Level of Research Design scoring. The evidence of the main outcomes was summarised and rated according to a scale of statements. 14 SRs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The appliances evaluated were as follows: Activator (2 studies), Twin Block (4 studies), headgear (3 studies), Herbst (2 studies), Jasper Jumper (1 study), Bionator (1 study) and Fränkel‐2 (1 study). Four studies reviewed several functional appliances, as a group. The mean AMSTAR score was 6 (ranged 2–10). Six SRs included only controlled clinical trials (CCTs), three SRs included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), four SRs included both CCTs and RCTs and one SR included also expert opinions. There was some evidence of reduction of the overjet, with different appliances except from headgear; there was some evidence of small maxillary growth restrain with Twin Block and headgear; there was some evidence of elongation of mandibular length, but the clinical relevance of this results is still questionable; there was insufficient evidence to determine an effect on soft tissues.     

Methods employed for other systematic reviews.

Two separate groups of reviewers were involved in the Consensus Development Conference on Diagnosis and Management of Dental Caries Throughout Life. The training of the independent reviewers and the methodology they used differed from that of the team at the Research Triangle Institute and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (RTI/UNC).     

Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion: Overview of systematic reviews

Objectives: The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to investigate methodological quality and outcome of current systematic reviews (SRs) reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion.

Materials and methods: Computerized and manual searches were performed in Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, Conference abstracts and Grey literature. No restrictions were set on language or date of publication. The search covered the starting date of the relevant databases until 30 April 2015. MeSH terms and free-text terms included ‘malocclusion’, ‘Angle class III’, ‘orthodontic appliances’, ‘functional’, facemask, review and meta-analysis. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the SRs and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR (assessment of multiple systematic reviews).

Results: A total of 222 studies were retrieved and after removal of duplicates, irrelevant studies, literature reviews and surgical approach treatments, 14 SRs and/or meta-analyses were included for qualitative synthesis. Mean AMSTAR score was 7.7/11 with a range of 3–10. There was evidence to demonstrate that face mask therapy can move the maxilla forward whilst causing a backward rotation of the mandible and increased facial height. There was also some evidence of mandibular growth retardation with chin cup therapy.

Conclusions: Orthopaedic appliances can improve a class III malocclusion in growing patients over the short-term; however, each appliance has a characteristic effect on the underlying skeletal pattern.     

Alveolar ridge preservation: an overview of systematic reviews

The aim of this overview was to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials on alveolar ridge preservation after a tooth extraction. During March 2020, two independent reviewers performed an electronic search of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant systematic reviews including randomized clinical trials on alveolar ridge preservation. A manual search of articles in renowned journals was also conducted. The methodological quality of the included reviews was determined using the AMSTAR-2 tool. From the 53 initially retrieved studies, 11 were finally included: three systematic reviews and eight systematic reviews with meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the included reviews was low or critically low. Higher quality clinical studies should be conducted prior to performing further reviews and these should meet the methodological requirements that are fundamental to this type of research.     

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on vertical bone regeneration

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of systematic reviews of vertical bone regeneration techniques, using two quality-assessment tools (AMSTAR and ROBIS). An electronic literature search was conducted to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses that would evaluate at least one of the following outcomes: implant survival, success rates, complications or bone gain after vertical ridge augmentation. Methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent evaluators. Results were compared between reviewers, and reliability measures were calculated using the Holsti’s method^® and Cohen’s kappa. Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which seven presented meta-analysis. Mean ±95% confidence interval AMSTAR score was 6.35 [4.74;7.97], with higher scores being correlated with a smaller risk of bias (Pearson’s correlation coefficient = ?0.84; P < 0.01). Cohen’s inter-examiner kappa showed substantial agreement for both checklists. From the available evidence, we ascertained that, regardless of the technique used, it is possible to obtain vertical bone gains. Implant success in regenerated areas was similar to implants placed in pristine bone with results equating between 61.5% and 100% with guided bone regeneration being considered the most predictable technique regarding bone stability, while distraction osteogenesis achieved the biggest bone gains with the highest risk of possible complications.