Systematic Reviews in Dental Research. A Guideline.

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

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, http://www.ada.org/1754.aspx

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: http://www.cochrane.org/sites/default/ 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.http://www.idi.ntnu.no/emner/empse/papers/kitchenham_2004.pdf

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. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/nosgen.doc. 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: http://www.nice.org.uk (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. www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/cochrane, 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://www.stst-help.com/notes.html

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.