Research
Evidence-Based Dentistry (2007) 8, 5–6. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400504
Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality
Corresponding author: Carlos Flores-Mir, Director of the Craniofacial and Oral-health Evidence-based Practice Group, 4051 Dentistry/ Pharmacy Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2N8. Tel.: + 1 780 492 7409; fax: +1 780 492 7108; carlosflores@ualberta.ca
Michael P Major1,2, Paul W Major2,3 and Carlos Flores-Mir2,3
- 1Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston University, Boston, USA
- 2Craniofacial and Oral-health Evidence-based Practice Group
- 3Orthodontic Graduate Program, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Abstract
Background
Previous evaluations showed that literature-search and selection methods reported in dental systematic reviews (SR) have improved since 2000. It is not known, however, whether these differences are consistent between the SR of the different dental specialities.
Methods
SR in dentistry published in the English language between 1 January 2000 and 14 June 2006 were located and then categorised by American Dental Association (ADA) recognised specialities. Search and selection methods were evaluated following an adaptation of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Search and selection methods between dental specialities were compared using Pearson's chi-squared analysis and ranked.
Results
There were significant differences between specialities in the following criteria: documentation of search dates (P 0.003); inclusion–exclusion documentation (P 0.017); article selection by two or more reviewers (P 0.001); and inclusion of all languages (P 0.014). Periodontics SR met the most criteria followed by oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) and then dental public heath (DPH). Prosthodontics along with the area of oral and maxillofacial radiology (OMR) met the fewest. All dental SR had low compliance with four criteria, only 65.7% searched more than Medline, 50.4% had a search strategy documented with Boolean operators, 51.5% had article selection carried out by two or more reviewers and only 25.7% included all languages.
Conclusions
Some dental specialities are better at reporting search and selection methods than others but all dental SR need some improvement in their reporting.
Keywords:
dentistry, evidence-based practice, evidence-based dentistry, systematic review
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated
RESEARCH
Evidence-Based Dentistry Trade News
Benchmarking the dental randomised controlled literature on MEDLINE
Evidence-Based Dentistry Research Article
Medline search validity for randomised controlled trials in different areas of dental research
British Dental Journal Research (26 Jan 2002)
Sequential analysis applied to clinical trials in dentistry: a systematic review
Evidence-Based Dentistry Research
Evidentista ? www.evidentista.org
Evidence-Based Dentistry Trade News
