Article Data

  • Views 917
  • Dowloads 275

Original Research

Open Access

Systematic Reviews in Dental Research. A Guideline.

  • Maia LC1,*,
  • Antonio AG2

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry – Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

2Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry – Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

3 and Post Graduate Department , School of Dentistry - Universidade Veiga de Almeida, Rio de Janeiro

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.37.2.h606137vj3826v61 Vol.37,Issue 2,March 2013 pp.117-124

Published: 01 March 2013

*Corresponding Author(s): Maia LC E-mail:


Background: A systematic review aims to combine outcome data from published studies in a population. It is based on a number of steps and although there are numerous advantages in systematic review studies, dentists have been finding difficulties in performing them. Objective: Taking into account the misconceptions and difficulties in conducting this kind of study, this article aims to guide readers for understanding, performing, and interpreting comprehensive systematic reviews in dental research.


systematic review, methodology, dentistry

Cite and Share

Maia LC,Antonio AG. Systematic Reviews in Dental Research. A Guideline.. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2013. 37(2);117-124.


1. Frantsve-Hawley J, Meyer DM. The evidence-based dentistry champions: a grassroots approach to the implementation of EBD. J Evid Base DentPract 8:64-69, 2008.

2. Healey D, Lyons K. Evidence-based practice in dentistry. New Zealand-Dent J 98:32-35, 2002.

3. ADA. Policy on Evidence-Based Dentistry, accessed July 25, 2011,

4. Feldstein DA. Clinician’s guide to systematic review and meta-analyses. Wisconsin Med J 104:25-29, 2005.

5. Clarkson JE, Bonetti D. Why be an evidence-based dentistry champion? J Evid Base DentPract 9:145-150, 2009.

6. Pai M, McCullioch M, Gorman JD, Pai N, Enanoria W, Kennedy G, Thyryan P, Coldford JM Jr. Systematic revies and meta-analyses: na illus-trated, step-by-step. NatiMed J India, 17:86-95, 2004.

7. Acevedo AM. A step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systematic review. In Handbook of Scientific Methodology: A guide for the dental researcher. São Paulo: SBPQO – Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica; LAR – Latin American Regionof The InternationalAssociation for dental Research (IADR157-79), 2009.

8. Clarkson J, Harrison JE, Ismail AI, Needleman I, Worthington H. Evidence based dentistry for effective practice. London: Taylor and Francis Group, 2003. 228p

9. Nasser M, Fedorowicz Z. Guest Editorial. Grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: the GRADE approach to improving dental Clinical Guidelines. J Appl Oral Sci[online] 19:0-0, 2011.

10. Needleman I. Introduction to evidence based medicine. In Clarkson J, Harrison JE, Ismail AI, Needleman I, Worthington H. Evidence based dentistry for effective practice. London: Taylor and Francis Group, 2003. Chapter 1: 1-17.

11. Hassig RA. Evidence-based medicine. University of Connecticut Health Center. V.XIII, 3/4, 1999.

12. Cochrane Collaboration. Glossary of Terms in the Cochrane Collaboration Version 4.2.5. Avail¬able at: files/uploads/glossary.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2011.

13. Antonio AG, Pierro VS, Maia LC. Caries preventive effects of xylitol-based candies and lozenges: a systematic review.J Public Health Dent 71:117-24, 2011.

14. Tannure PN, Oliveira CA, Maia LC, Vieira AR, Granjeiro JM, Costa MC. Prevalence of dental anomalies in non-syndromic individuals with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J [E-pub ahead of print Jul 8, 2011] In press, 2011.

15. Marquezan M, Osório A, Sant’Anna E, Souza MM, Maia L. Does bone mineral density influence the primary stability of dental implants? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. [Epub ahead of print], 2011.

16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ 338:b2535, 2009.

17. Manzies D. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In J Tuberc Lung Dis 15:582-593, 2011.

18. Kitchenham B. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews.

19. Mc Gowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J MedLibrAssoc 93:74-80, 2005.

20. Whiting P, RutjesAWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J. The devel-opment of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diag-nostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology3: 2-13, 2003.

21. Davies JPL, Crambie IK. The why and how of critical appraisal. In: Clarkson J, Harrison JE, Ismail AI, Needleman I, Worthington H. Evidence based dentistry for effective practice. London: Taylor and Francis Group. Chapter 3: 43-57, 2003.

22. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323:42-46.

23. Zaza S, Wright-De Agu¨ero LK, Briss PA, Truman BI, Hopkins DP, Hennessy MH, Sosin DM, Anderson L, Carande-Kulis VG, Teutsch SM, Pappaioanou M. Data Collection Instrument and Procedure for Systematic Reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Am J PrevMed 18(1S):44–74, 2000.

24. Hartlig L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Seida JK, Klassen TP. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomized controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 339:b4012, 2009.

25. Jüni P, Witscchi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282:1061-1083, 1999.

26. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, meta-analyses. Accessed August 2011.

27. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009). The guide-lines manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excel-lence. Availablefrom: (accessed 26 August 2011).

28. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports parallel group randomized trials. Lancet 357:1191-94, 2001.

29. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vanden-broucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. JournalofClinicalEpidemiology 61: 344-349, 2008.

30. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist Gunn et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J ClinEpidemiol 64:383-394, 2011.

31. Armstrong R, Waters E. Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field., 2007.

32. Israel H, Richter RR. A guide to understanding meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 41:496-504, 2011.

33. Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observa-tional studies. J ClinPeriodontol 38:856-63, 2011.

34. Jackson N, Waters E, for the Guidelines for Systematic Reviews of Health Promotionand Public Health Interventions Taskforce. Guidelines for Cochrane systematic reviews of public heal th interventions. Health Promotion International 20:367-74, 2005.

35. Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, Hirschi JA. Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies. Pain Physician 12:819-850, 2009.

36. De Coster J (2004). Meta-analysis Notes. HTTP://

37. Alanen P, Isokangas P, Gutmann K. Xylitol candies in caries prevention: results of a field study in Estonian children. CommunityDent Oral Epide-miol 28: 218-224, 2000.

38. Honkala E, Honkala S, Shyama M, Al-Mutawa SA. Field trial on caries prevention with candies among disabled school students. Caries Res 40:

508- 513, 2006.

39. Stecksén-Blicks C, Holgerson PL, Twetman S. Effect of xylitol and xyli-tol-fluoride lozenges on approximal caries development in high-caries-risk children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 18: 170-177, 2008.

40. Ebell MH, SiwekJ,Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, EwigmanB, Bowman

M. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): A Patient-Centered Approach to Grading Evidence in the Medical Literature. J AmBoardFam-Pract 17:59–67, 2004.

41. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, Addrizzo-Harri D, Hylek EM, Phil-lips B, Raskob G, Lewis SZ, Schunemann H. Grading Strength of Recom-mendations and Quality of Evidence in Clinical Guidelines Report From an American College of Chest Physicians Task Force. CHEST 129:174-181, 2006.

42. Oxman AD. Grading quality of evidence and strength of Recommenda-tions. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evalua-tion (GRADE) Working Group Clinical guidelines are only as good as the evidence and judgments they are based on. The GRADE. approach aims to make it easier for users to assess the judgments behind recommendations. BMJ 328: 1490-1493, 2004.

43. Downs SH & Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklins for the assess-ment of the methodological quality both of randomized and non-random-ized studies of health care interventions. J EpidemioloCommunity Health 52:377-384, 1998.

44. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ 309: 1351-5, 1994.

45. Eysennck HJ. Meta-analysis and its problems. BMJ 309: 789-792, 1994.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time