Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand?


Koletsi, Despina; Fleming, Padhraig S; Eliades, Theodore; Pandis, Nikolaos (2015). The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand? European Journal of Orthodontics, 37(6):603-609.

Abstract

AIM: To analyse meta-analyses included in systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) focusing on orthodontic literature and to assess the quality of the existing evidence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searching was undertaken to identify SRs published in five major orthodontic journals and the CDSR between January 2000 and June 2014. Quality assessment of the overall body of evidence from meta-analyses was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE) tool.
RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven SRs were identified; meta-analysis was present in 43 of these (27.4 per cent). The highest proportion of SRs that included a meta-analysis was found in Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (6/13; 46.1 per cent), followed by the CDSR (12/33; 36.4 per cent) and the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (15/44; 34.1 per cent). Class II treatment was the most commonly addressed topic within SRs in orthodontics (n = 18/157; 11.5 per cent). The number of trials combined to produce a summary estimate was small for most meta-analyses with a median of 4 (range: 2-52). Only 21 per cent (n = 9) of included meta-analyses were considered to have a high/moderate quality of evidence according to GRADE, while the majority were of low or very low quality (n = 34; 79.0 per cent).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, approximately one quarter of orthodontic SRs included quantitative synthesis, with a median of four trials per meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence from the selected orthodontic SRs was predominantly low to very low indicating the relative lack of high quality of evidence from SRs to inform clinical practice guidelines.

Abstract

AIM: To analyse meta-analyses included in systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) focusing on orthodontic literature and to assess the quality of the existing evidence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searching was undertaken to identify SRs published in five major orthodontic journals and the CDSR between January 2000 and June 2014. Quality assessment of the overall body of evidence from meta-analyses was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE) tool.
RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven SRs were identified; meta-analysis was present in 43 of these (27.4 per cent). The highest proportion of SRs that included a meta-analysis was found in Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (6/13; 46.1 per cent), followed by the CDSR (12/33; 36.4 per cent) and the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (15/44; 34.1 per cent). Class II treatment was the most commonly addressed topic within SRs in orthodontics (n = 18/157; 11.5 per cent). The number of trials combined to produce a summary estimate was small for most meta-analyses with a median of 4 (range: 2-52). Only 21 per cent (n = 9) of included meta-analyses were considered to have a high/moderate quality of evidence according to GRADE, while the majority were of low or very low quality (n = 34; 79.0 per cent).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, approximately one quarter of orthodontic SRs included quantitative synthesis, with a median of four trials per meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence from the selected orthodontic SRs was predominantly low to very low indicating the relative lack of high quality of evidence from SRs to inform clinical practice guidelines.

Statistics

Citations

8 citations in Web of Science®
7 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

48 downloads since deposited on 13 Jan 2016
28 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:December 2015
Deposited On:13 Jan 2016 10:54
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 19:51
Publisher:Oxford University Press
ISSN:0141-5387
Additional Information:This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in The European Journal of Orthodontics following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version [The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand? Despina Koletsi, Padhraig S. Fleming, Theodore Eliades, Nikolaos Pandis, The European Journal of Orthodontics Dec 2015, 37 (6) 603-609; DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cju087] is available online at: http://ejo.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/6/603.
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju087
PubMed ID:25667037

Download

Download PDF  'The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand?'.
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 959kB
View at publisher