The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry
The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00013.x
复制
发表时间：
2003-04-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Worthington, HV
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Glenny, AM;Esposito, M;Worthington, HV
本研究的目的是评估牙科干预措施有效性系统综述的质量。检索了有效性综述文摘数据库（Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness）和考克兰系统综述数据库（Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews），以确定有关口腔、牙科和颅面紊乱及疾病干预措施有效性的系统综述。65篇综述被确定，并由两名评审员独立评估。综述中最常评估的领域是疼痛缓解/预防（65篇中的20篇，占31%），其次是龋齿和口腔医学。对所确定的系统综述的质量评估突出了可改进的关键领域。这些综述的一个主要弱点是所采用的检索策略并不总是充分的。只有12篇综述（19%）显示出尝试确定所有相关研究。其他薄弱领域包括对原始研究的筛选和质量评估、数据合并和异质性检验以及对研究结果的解释。这项调查表明，牙科系统综述的质量可以提高。如果未来的临床决策要基于系统综述，那么这些综述必须解决临床相关的重点问题，并遵循一个“透明的”、精心设计的方案。
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.