Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?
Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ejo/cjs016
复制
发表时间：
2013-04-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Pandis, Nikolaos
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fleming, Padhraig S.;Seehra, Jadbinder;Pandis, Nikolaos
本研究的目的是使用AMSTAR评估和比较发表在主要正畸期刊和科克伦系统综述数据库（CDSR）中的科克伦和非科克伦系统综述（SR）的方法学质量，并比较两种综述类型中荟萃分析的流行率。进行文献检索以识别SR，包括手动检索五种主要正畸期刊[American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics，Angle Orthodontist，European Journal of Orthodontics，Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research（2002年2月至2011年7月）]和2000年1月至2011年7月的科克伦系统评价数据库。使用AMSTAR工具评估纳入的综述的方法学质量，该工具涉及11个关键方法学标准，每个标准的评分为0或1。对论文总体进行累积评分（0 - 11）;总体评分为4分或更低代表方法学质量较差，5 - 8分被认为是一般，9分或更高被认为是良好。在五种主要期刊和CDSR上共确定了109份SR。其中，26人（23.9%）在CDSR。平均总体AMSTAR评分为6.2，21.1%的评论满足11项标准中的9项或更多;还注意到差评的相似发生率（22%）。多元线性回归表明，CDSR（P <0.01）中发表的综述;涉及荟萃分析（β = 0.50，95%置信区间0.72，2.07，P <0.001）显示与AMSTAR的一致性更高。
The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (beta = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.