The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry

An Overview of Systematic Reviews on the Surgical Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnoea

Background

Obstructive Sleep Apnoea (OSA) is a common sleep disorder marked by partial or total obstruction of the upper airway while a person is asleep leading to breathing difficulty, reduced oxygenation and frequent awakenings. This condition affects the general health significantly compromising quality of life. The objective of this overview  is to thoroughly assess the systematic reviews on current surgical therapies for the management of OSA in terms of patient outcomes.

Methods

A thorough literature search was performed from inception till 31st December 2022 using PubMed, and Cochrane databases. Studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of different surgical techniques for the management of OSA were considered. The quality of articles was assessed using AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and Glenny et al. checklist.

Results

Out of eighteen studies, only seven studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results showed that the majority of studies were in the pediatric age group except one systematic  review which assessed the adult age group.

Conclusion

None of the published articles had compared all surgical procedures based on the standard evaluating procedure nor followed all reporting guidelines in the primary studies. For better implementation, further multi center studies are warranted with unique reporting criteria and guidelines about pre- as well as post-operative phases. Future research should concentrate on contrasting strategies, combination therapies, and evaluating long-term effects.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12663-023-02051-x.

Effectiveness of orthopaedic treatments on the enlargement of the upper airways: Overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this overview are to evaluate the three-dimensional effects of orthopaedic treatment (OT) and myofunctional therapy (MT) on the enlargement of the upper airways (UA).

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted up to July 2022 and completed by hand search. After selection of the title and abstract, systematic reviews (SR) dealing with the impact of OT and/or MT on UA containing only controlled studies were included. The methodological quality of the SR was assessed by the AMSTAR-2, Glenny and ROBIS tools. A quantitative analysis was done with Review Manager 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Ten SR were included. The risk of bias was judged low for one SR according to ROBIS. Two SR presented a high level of evidence according to AMSTAR-2. In the quantitative analysis and about the orthopaedic mandibular advancement therapies (OMA), while a significant increase in superior (SPS) [(Mean difference (MD): 1.19; CI 95% [0.59; 1.78]; P<0.0001)] and middle (MPS) pharyngeal space [(MD: 1.10; CI 95% [0.22; 1.98]; P=0.01)] existed in the short-term for both OMA, it was greater for removable. On the other hand, there was no significant change in the inferior pharyngeal space (IPS). Four other SR targeted the short-term efficacy of class III OT. Only treatments with face mask (FM) or face mask+rapid maxillary expansion (FM+RME) allowed a significant increase in SPS [(MD FM: 0.97; CI 95% [0.14; 1.81]; P=0.02/MD FM+RME: 1.54; CI 95% [0.43; 2.66]; P=0.006)]. This was neither the case for chin cup nor in all cases in IPS. The last two SR explored the effectiveness of RME, whether or not associated with bone anchorage, on the dimensions of the UA or on the reduction of the apnoea/hypopnea index (AHI). A significant superiority of the effects of the devices with mixed or only bone anchorages existed concerning the width of the nasal cavity, the nasal airflow and the reduction of the nasal resistance. But, the qualitative analysis showed no significant reduction in AHI after RME.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and their unfortunately not always low risk of bias, this synthesis showed that orthopaedics could provide some short-term improvement in AU dimensions, mainly in the upper and middle areas. Indeed, no devices improved the IPS. Class II orthopaedics improved SPS and MPS; class III orthopaedics, except for the chin cup, improved only SPS. RME, optimised with bone or mixed anchors, mostly improved the nasal floor.

CAT HPPR: a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention

BACKGROUND

For over three decades researchers have developed critical appraisal tools (CATs) for assessing the scientific quality of research overviews. Most established CATs for reviews in evidence-based medicine and evidence-based public health (EBPH) focus on systematic reviews (SRs) with studies on experimental interventions or exposure included. EBPH- and implementation-oriented organisations and decision-makers, however, often seek access to rapid reviews (RRs) or scoping reviews (ScRs) for rapid evidence synthesis and research field exploration. Until now, no CAT is available to assess the quality of SRs, RRs, and ScRs following a unified approach. We set out to develop such a CAT.

METHODS

The development process of the Critical Appraisal Tool for Health Promotion and Prevention Reviews (CAT HPPR) included six phases: (i) the definition of important review formats and complementary approaches, (ii) the identification of relevant CATs, (iii) prioritisation, selection and adaptation of quality criteria using a consensus approach, (iv) development of the rating system and bilingual guidance documents, (v) engaging with experts in the field for piloting/optimising the CAT, and (vi) approval of the final CAT. We used a pragmatic search approach to identify reporting guidelines/standards (n = 3; e.g. PRISMA, MECIR) as well as guidance documents (n = 17; e.g. for reviews with mixed-methods approach) to develop working definitions for SRs, RRs, ScRs, and other review types (esp. those defined by statistical methods or included data sources).

RESULTS

We successfully identified 14 relevant CATs, predominantly for SRs (e.g. AMSTAR 2), and extracted 46 items. Following consensual discussions 15 individual criteria were included in our CAT and tailored to the review types of interest. The CAT was piloted with 14 different reviews which were eligible to be included in a new German database looking at interventions in health promotion and prevention in different implementation settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly developed CAT HPPR follows a unique uniformed approach to assess a set of heterogeneous reviews (e.g. reviews from problem identification to policy evaluations) to assist end-users needs. Feedback of external experts showed general feasibility and satisfaction with the tool. Future studies should further formally test the validity of CAT HPPR using larger sets of reviews.

The consequences of living with a severe malocclusion: A review of the literature

AIM

To facilitate the orthognathic shared decision-making process by identifying and applying existing research evidence to establish the potential consequences of living with a severe malocclusion.

METHODS

A comprehensive narrative literature review was conducted to explore the potential complications of severe malocclusion. A systematic electronic literature search of four databases combined with supplementary hand searching identified 1024 articles of interest. A total of 799 articles were included in the narrative literature review, which was divided into 10 themes: Oral Health Related Quality Of Life; Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction; Masticatory Limitation; Sleep Apnoea; Traumatic Dental Injury; Tooth Surface Loss; Change Over Time; Periodontal Injury; Restorative Difficulty; and Functional Shift and Dual Bite. A deductive approach was used to draw conclusions from the evidence available within each theme.

RESULTS

The narrative literature review established 27 conclusions, indicating that those living with a severe malocclusion may be predisposed to a range of potential consequences. With the exception of Oral Health Related Quality Of Life, which is poorer in adults with severe malocclusion than those with normal occlusions, and the risk of Traumatic Dental Injury, which increases when the overjet is >5 mm in the permanent and 3 mm in the primary dentition, the evidence supporting the remaining conclusions was found to be of low to moderate quality and at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

This article summarises the findings of a comprehensive narrative literature review in which all of the relevant research evidence within a substantive investigative area is established and evaluated. Notwithstanding limitations regarding the quality of the available evidence; when combined with clinical expertise and an awareness of individual patient preferences, the conclusions presented may facilitate the orthognathic shared decision-making process and furthermore, may guide the development of the high-quality longitudinal research required to validate them.

Efficiency of maxillomandibular advancement for the treatment of obstructive apnea syndrome: a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficiency of maxillomandibular advancement using aggregated individual patient data from multiple studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This overview was structured according to the PICO strategy. It adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses checklist and was recorded on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO-CRD42020206135). Searches were conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS, and Cochrane databases for studies published until January 1, 2021. Data from the included studies were collected by one author, while another reviewed the compilation.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews were included. The outcome measures studied were the apnea-hypopnea index, respiratory disturbance index, mean oxygen saturation, lowest oxygen saturation, sleepiness data, posterior air space, sella-nasion point A angle, sella-nasion point B angle, surgical success, and surgical cure in patients who underwent surgery. The AMSTAR scale presented moderate evaluations, with grades varying between 6 and 10 points. The Glenny scale revealed that the study selection did not include all languages. Only three reviews identified quality assessments conducted by at least two reviewers and only five related possible searches for unpublished data.

CONCLUSIONS

Bimaxillary advancement surgery improved respiratory indicators, sleepiness data, and increased upper airway size. However, it is necessary to standardize the surgical criteria to establish measurable efficiency of the procedure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This overview makes a critical analysis of the results of the selected systematic reviews with the aim of presenting the most clinically relevant data on the maxillomandibular advancement for treating obstructive apnea syndrome, with a focus on improving respiratory, anatomical, and quality of life indices. There are no overviews that approach this theme from a well-structured perspective.

Quantitative assessment of the jawbone quality classification: A meta-analysis study

AIM

Bone quality is evaluated using bone density for qualitative classification, a characteristic that may be delicate to evaluate. Contemporary implantology that relies on modern measurement techniques, needs a more quantitative estimate of the bone quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched with no time restriction. Clinical and radiographic studies reporting on alveolar ridge dimensions and its parameters in different areas of the dentate and edentulous jaws were included. A meta-analysis was performed using random effect models to report a combined mean for alveolar ridge and its parameters. Meta regression statistical tests were performed in order to identify differences in those outcome parameters.

RESULTS

30 studies were included. The majority of the selected studies (total of 27) used live human subjects and CBCT to analyze alveolar ridge dimensions and its parameters. Using the combined mean obtained from the meta-analysis, a typical portrait of the alveolar ridge was constructed, and a geometrically based quantitative bone classification proposed. The quantitative classification was found to match the existing qualitative classification.

CONCLUSION

A geometry-based analysis was constructed that yields valuable insights on the bone type based on its components and on the dynamics of the dentate / edentulous states.

Incidence of condylar resorption after bimaxillary, Lefort I, and mandibular surgery: an overview

The aim of the present overview was to evaluate the outcomes of systematic reviews to determine the incidence of condylar resorption in patients submitted to orthognathic surgery and analyze whether the risk of developing this condition is related to a specific type of surgery. Searches were conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases for systematic reviews with quantitative data on condylar resorption due to any type of orthognathic surgery for dentoskeletal deformities published up to May 25, 2019. The AMSTAR 2 and Glenny tools were applied for the quality appraisal. Five systematic reviews were included for analysis. Only one article was considered to have high quality. Among a total of 5128 patients, 12.32% developed condylar resorption. From those patients, 70.1% had double jaw surgery, 23.4% had mandibular surgery alone, and in 6.5% a Lefort I technique was used. Based on these findings, bimaxillary surgery could be considered a risk factor for condylar resorption. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, since other factors, such as pre-operative skeletal deformities, type of movement, and type of fixation, can contribute to the development of this condition. Further studies should consider reporting main cephalometric data, temporomandibular diagnosis, hormonal levels, and tomographic measures before and after the surgery at least every 6 months during the firsts two years to identify accurately risk factors for condylar resorption.

Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Platform-Switching vs Platform-Matched Implants: An Overview

The objective of this study was to perform a quality analysis of systematic reviews with meta-analyses that focused on the comparison of platform-switching (implant-abutment mismatching) and platform-matched (PM) implants. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and Glenny (Checklist) Scales were used to qualify the studies. PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Web of Science (formerly ISI Web of Knowledge), and Cochrane databases were searched, by topic, for systematic reviews on dental implants with switching platforms. A total of 8 systematic reviews, including 7 studies with meta-analyses, were selected. The AMSTAR scale indicated a high (n = 6) to moderate (n = 2) score for the included studies. The quantitative analysis indicated that platform-switching implants preserved more bone tissue when compared with platform-matched implants (6 meta-analyses; P < .001, smaller mean difference: -0.29 mm, 95% CI: -0.38, -0.19 and greater mean difference: -0.49 mm, 95% CI: -0.73, -0.26). Quantitative analysis based on 7 systematic reviews with meta-analysis indicated positive peri-implant bone preservation for implants restored with an implant-abutment mismatching (PSW). Further, there is evidence to improve the design of current systematic reviews. Future systematic reviews in this thematic area should consider searches in gray literature and different databases and include only randomized controlled clinical studies.

Current Knowledge on Correlations Between Highly Prevalent Dental Conditions and Chronic Diseases: An Umbrella Review

Introduction

Studies have investigated the relationships between chronic systemic and dental conditions, but it remains unclear how such knowledge can be used in clinical practice. In this article, we provide an overview of existing systematic reviews, identifying and evaluating the most frequently reported dental–chronic disease correlations and common risk factors.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of existing systematic reviews (umbrella review) published between 1995 and 2017 and indexed in 4 databases. We focused on the 3 most prevalent dental conditions and 10 chronic systemic diseases with the highest burden of disease in Germany. Two independent reviewers assessed all articles for eligibility and methodologic quality using the AMSTAR criteria and extracted data from the included studies.

Results

Of the initially identified 1,249 systematic reviews, 32 were included for qualitative synthesis. The dental condition with most frequently observed correlations to chronic systemic diseases was periodontitis. The chronic systemic disease with the most frequently observed correlations with a dental condition was type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Most dental–chronic disease correlations were found between periodontitis and T2DM and periodontitis and cardiovascular disease. Frequently reported common risk factors were smoking, age, sex, and overweight. Using the AMSTAR criteria, 2 studies were assessed as low quality, 26 studies as moderate quality, and 4 studies as high quality.

Conclusion

The quality of included systematic reviews was heterogeneous. The most frequently reported correlations were found for periodontitis with T2DM and for periodontitis with cardiovascular disease. However, the strength of evidence for these and other disease correlations is limited, and the evidence to assess the causality of these disease correlations remains unclear. Future research should focus on the causality of disease links in order to provide more decisive evidence with respect to the design of intersectoral care processes.

The Effect of Time on Root Coverage Outcomes: A Network Meta-analysis

The stability of root coverage outcomes has gained a great deal of interest. However, insufficient evidence is available, mainly due to limited direct comparisons among different techniques and the small sample size among clinical trials. Therefore, the aim of this study was to propose a mixed-models network meta-analysis (NMA) that includes the novelty of assessing time on root coverage outcomes while simultaneously comparing different surgical approaches. A literature search was performed by 2 individual reviewers to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of root coverage procedures of at least 2 time points to estimate the slopes of different treatment approaches. The primary outcomes were the changes in slopes for recession depth (REC), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and clinical attachment level. Sixty RCTs with a total of 2,554 gingival recessions (1,864 patients) were included in the NMA. Connective tissue graft (CTG) and enamel matrix derivative (EMD) approaches provided superior initial REC reduction compared to flap advancement alone. However, only CTG-based procedures were effective in maintaining the stability of the gingival margin over time, while EMD, acellular dermal matrix, collagen matrix, and flap alone showed a similar tendency for gingival recession recurrence. Baseline REC and KTW at the earliest postoperative recall were predictors for the stability of the gingival margin. In addition, a geographic center effect on the treatment slopes was observed for REC and KTW. While limitations of the present linear mixed-modeling approach should be considered as it refers to estimation and comparison of time slopes based on an examined while linear framework, the designed NMA showed to be an effective tool for the simultaneous comparison of multiple treatment approaches while taking into account the critical element of time.

Influence of Diabetes on the Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Loss of Dental Implants: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

We aimed to conduct an analysis of the systematic reviews (SRs) in literature about the implant survival rate (ISR) and marginal bone loss (MBL) in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. This work was registered in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018095314) and was developed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Cochrane Library Handbook. A search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and LILACS. The PICO (problem/patient/population, intervention/indicator, comparison, outcome) question was "Do the survival rates of dental implants and marginal bone loss differ between diabetic and nondiabetic patients?" A total of 130 articles were retrieved. After eliminating repetitions, 118 were reviewed. Finally, 6 SRs were included. All the reviews indicated that there is no effect of diabetes on the ISR; however, a negative effect of the disease can be observed in MBL. Analysis of the quality of the studies was performed using the assessment of SRs in dentistry (Glenny Scale) and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Glenny Scale showed a moderate to high quality of the included studies. In contrast, AMSTAR 2 pointed out a critically low level for 4 studies, with no study fulfilling the criteria for high quality. It may be concluded that there is no effect of diabetes on the ISR; however, a negative effect of the disease can be observed on MBL.

Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews (SRs) attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews. This is the second of two papers from a study aiming to develop a comprehensive evidence map of the methods used in overviews. Our objectives were to (a) develop a framework of methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews (stage I)-the Methods for Overviews of Reviews (MOoR) framework-and (b) to create an evidence map by mapping studies that have evaluated overview methods to the framework (stage II). In the first paper, we reported findings for the four initial steps of an overview (specification of purpose, objectives and scope; eligibility criteria; search methods; data extraction). In this paper, we report the remaining steps: assessing risk of bias; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessing certainty of the evidence arising from the overview.

METHODS

In stage I, we identified cross-sectional studies, guidance documents and commentaries that described methods proposed for, or used in, overviews. Based on these studies, we developed a framework of possible methods for overviews, categorised by the steps in conducting an overview. Multiple iterations of the framework were discussed and refined by all authors. In stage II, we identified studies evaluating methods and mapped these evaluations to the framework.

RESULTS

Forty-two stage I studies described methods relevant to one or more of the latter steps of an overview. Six studies evaluating methods were included in stage II. These mapped to steps involving (i) the assessment of risk of bias (RoB) in SRs (two SRs and three primary studies, all reporting evaluation of RoB tools) and (ii) the synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings (one primary study evaluating methods for measuring overlap).

CONCLUSION

Many methods have been described for use in the latter steps in conducting an overview; however, evaluation and guidance for applying these methods is sparse. The exception is RoB assessment, for which a multitude of tools exist-several with sufficient evaluation and guidance to recommend their use. Evaluation of other methods is required to provide a comprehensive evidence map.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on vertical bone regeneration

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of systematic reviews of vertical bone regeneration techniques, using two quality-assessment tools (AMSTAR and ROBIS). An electronic literature search was conducted to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses that would evaluate at least one of the following outcomes: implant survival, success rates, complications or bone gain after vertical ridge augmentation. Methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent evaluators. Results were compared between reviewers, and reliability measures were calculated using the Holsti's method^® and Cohen's kappa. Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which seven presented meta-analysis. Mean ±95% confidence interval AMSTAR score was 6.35 [4.74;7.97], with higher scores being correlated with a smaller risk of bias (Pearson's correlation coefficient=-0.84; P<0.01). Cohen's inter-examiner kappa showed substantial agreement for both checklists. From the available evidence, we ascertained that, regardless of the technique used, it is possible to obtain vertical bone gains. Implant success in regenerated areas was similar to implants placed in pristine bone with results equating between 61.5% and 100% with guided bone regeneration being considered the most predictable technique regarding bone stability, while distraction osteogenesis achieved the biggest bone gains with the highest risk of possible complications.

Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontics

OBJECTIVES

Heterogeneity describes the percentage of variability across the study effects that can be attributed to between-study differences in a meta-analysis. The aim of this project was to explore the magnitude of heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontic research and to identify possible associations between heterogeneity (I²) and a number of study characteristics including number of studies, type of outcome and type of analysis.

METHODS

The contents of five major orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were electronically searched from January 2000 to December 2017 to identify Systematic Reviews (SRs) with at least one meta-analysis. Included records were screened for reporting of I² classified into four categories: 0%, 1-29%, 30-59%, 60-100%. Associations between I² and review-level and synthesis-level characteristics were tested. Univariable and multivariable mixed effects ordinal logistic regression was used to identify significant predictors for statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 72 SRs comprising 391 meta-analyses were included with the majority based on non-Cochrane reviews (n = 54, 75%). Overall, 125 meta-analyses (32%) reported heterogeneity explained by chance (I² = 0%), whereas high values of I² (∼60-100%) were seen in 152 syntheses (39%). In the multivariable analysis, inclusion of each additional study within the synthesis presented 20% higher odds for substantial/considerable heterogeneity compared to lower heterogeneity categories (OR = 1.20; 95%CIs: 1.09, 1.31; p < 0.001). Use of fixed effect analysis (OR = 0.25; 95%CIs: 0.12, 0.55; p = 0.001) was associated with significantly lower odds. Cochrane versus non-Cochrane meta-analyses were not associated with higher odds for substantial/considerable heterogeneity (OR = 2.81; 95%CIs: 0.53, 14.91; p = 0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial statistical heterogeneity is present within a considerable number of orthodontic meta-analyses. Further efforts should be made to improve understanding of decisions to undertake meta-analyses and selection of studies eligible for inclusion.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The consistency of meta-analyses could be improved with more careful consideration of individual study characteristics. Reduced heterogeneity in meta-analyses will ensue more solid evidence based decisions for clinical practice.

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports.

RESULTS

Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

A critical element in conducting a systematic review is the identification of studies. To date, very little empirical evidence has been reported on whether the presence of a librarian or information professional can contribute to the quality of the final product. The goal of this study was to compare the reporting rigor of the literature searching component of systematic reviews with and without the help of a librarian.

METHOD

Systematic reviews published from 2002 to 2011 in the twenty highest impact factor pediatrics journals were collected from MEDLINE. Corresponding authors were contacted via an email survey to determine if a librarian was involved, the role that the librarian played, and functions that the librarian performed. The reviews were scored independently by two reviewers using a fifteen-item checklist.

RESULTS

There were 186 reviews that met the inclusion criteria, and 44% of the authors indicated the involvement of a librarian in conducting the systematic review. With the presence of a librarian as coauthor or team member, the mean checklist score was 8.40, compared to 6.61 (p<0.001) for reviews without a librarian.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that having a librarian as a coauthor or team member correlates with a higher score in the literature searching component of systematic reviews.

Systematic reviews in oral health: a quality imperative

Systematic reviews must be conducted responsibly, eliminating any scope for error and bias. The reporting quality of a systematic review should follow and conform to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) is an assessment tool, which has been developed specifically to assess the quality of the process used in conducting the review. There has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews in oral health and several reports have been published stating low AMSTAR ratings of systematic reviews in dentistry. Systematic reviews answer key clinical questions objectively, and are often used to underpin clinical guidelines in oral health. If the quality of these reviews is compromised, this can result in inadequate or inappropriate clinical guidelines. Consequently, ensuring consistent high quality is a key imperative for systematic reviews in oral health.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on alveolar socket preservation

The aim of this overview was to evaluate and compare the quality of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, that have evaluated studies on techniques or biomaterials used for the preservation of alveolar sockets post tooth extraction in humans. An electronic search was conducted without date restrictions using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to April 2015. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, focused on the preservation of post-extraction alveolar sockets in humans. Two independent authors assessed the quality of the included reviews using AMSTAR and the checklist proposed by Glenny et al. in 2003. After the selection process, 12 systematic reviews were included. None of these reviews obtained the maximum score using the quality assessment tools implemented, and the results of the analyses were highly variable. A significant statistical correlation was observed between the scores of the two checklists. A wide structural and methodological variability was observed between the systematic reviews published on the preservation of alveolar sockets post tooth extraction. None of the reviews evaluated obtained the maximum score using the two quality assessment tools implemented.

Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a methodological assessment of paper-based systematic reviews (SR) published in oral health using a validated checklist. A secondary objective was to explore temporal trends on methodological quality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two electronic databases (OVID Medline and OVID EMBASE) were searched for paper-based SR of interventions published in oral health from inception to October 2014. Manual searches of the reference lists of paper-based SR were also conducted. Methodological quality of included paper-based SR was assessed using an 11-item questionnaire, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Methodological quality was summarized using the median and inter-quartile range (IQR) of the AMSTAR score over different categories and time periods.

RESULTS

A total of 643 paper-based SR were included. The overall median AMSTAR score was 4 (IQR 2-6). The highest median score (5) was found in the pain dentistry and periodontology fields, while the lowest median score (3) was found in implant dentistry, restorative dentistry, oral medicine, and prosthodontics. The number of paper-based SR per year and the median AMSTAR score increased over time (median score in 1990s was 2 (IQR 2-3), 2000s was 4 (IQR 2-5), and 2010 onwards was 5 (IQR 3-6)).

CONCLUSION

Although the methodological quality of paper-based SR published in oral health has improved in the last few years, there is still scope for improving quality in most evaluated dental specialties.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Large-scale assessment of methodological quality of dental SR highlights areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses that can be targeted in future publications to encourage better quality review methodology.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on alveolar ridge preservation

BACKGROUND

The authors conducted a study to assess the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published on the topic of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP).

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors conducted a search for SRs on ARP on the basis of a set of eligibility criteria (only SRs involving ARP, with or without meta-analyses, written in English). The authors assessed the quality of the SRs independently of one another by using two established checklists.

RESULTS

The authors selected eight SRs. The results of all of the SRs indicated that ARP was effective in preserving the ridge volume as compared with extraction alone, but it did not fully prevent bone-resorptive events. None of the SRs, however, received the highest possible score in either of the checklists. One SR that had a score of 5 (of a possible 11) using one checklist and 5 (of a possible 14) using the other checklist had the lowest overall score. The results of this assessment revealed that a significant proportion of the investigators in the SRs did not include non-English language articles, perform hand searching of published literature or evaluate the gray literature. Assessment of publication bias and reporting of conflicts of interest also was lacking in some studies. Practical Implications. Although ARP appears to be an effective approach to preventing resorption after tooth extraction, significant structural and methodological variability exists among SRs on this topic. Future SRs on ARP should consider the use of quality assessment checklists to minimize methodological shortcomings for better dissemination of scientific evidence.

Learning by doing-teaching systematic review methods in 8 weeks

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to describe the course "Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis" at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

METHODS

A distinct feature of our course is a group project in which students, assigned to multi-disciplinary groups, conduct a systematic review. In-class sessions comprise didactic lectures, hands-on exercises, demonstrations, discussion, and group work. Students also work outside of class to complete the systematic review. Students evaluated the course at the end of the term. We also surveyed students from 2004 to 2012 to learn more about the long-term impact of the course.

RESULTS

The course has been offered to more than 800 students since 1995. In our view, aspects that worked well include the hands-on approach, students working in a multidisciplinary group, intensive interaction with the teaching team, moving to an online approach, and continuous updates of the course content. A persistent issue is the constraint of time. 193 of 211 (91%) survey participants reported that the course is currently useful or as having an impact on their work.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experiences have led us to remain committed to a hands-on approach. Our course serves as a bridge between classroom learning and real-world practice, and provides an example of teaching systematic review.

Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Research indicates that the methods used to identify data for systematic reviews of adverse effects may need to differ from other systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To compare search methods in systematic reviews of adverse effects with other reviews.

METHODS

The search methodologies in 849 systematic reviews of adverse effects were compared with other reviews.

RESULTS

Poor reporting of search strategies is apparent in both systematic reviews of adverse effects and other types of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews of adverse effects are less likely to restrict their searches to MEDLINE or include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The use of other databases is largely dependent on the topic area and the year the review was conducted, with more databases searched in more recent reviews. Adverse effects search terms are used by 72% of reviews and despite recommendations only two reviews report using floating subheadings.

CONCLUSIONS

The poor reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews is universal, as is the dominance of searching MEDLINE. However, reviews of adverse effects are more likely to include a range of study designs (not just RCTs) and search beyond MEDLINE.

A practitioner's guide to developing critical appraisal skills: reviews of research

BACKGROUND

and overview. This article describes the different types of reviews of research that are available in the literature: systematic reviews and traditional reviews. Systematic reviews have become the reference standard for evidence to inform clinical practice. In this article, the authors set out guidance on appraising the quality and relevance of systematic reviews to help readers make decisions about their clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

and practical implications. Systematic reviews are of variable quality, although evaluations of reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration generally are of the highest quality. An assessment tool described in this article appears currently to be the most useful tool to guide clinicians to assess systematic reviews and therefore to decide whether the evidence is appropriate to change practice.

Methodological characteristics and treatment effect sizes in oral health randomised controlled trials: Is there a relationship? Protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

INTRODUCTION

It is fundamental that randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are properly conducted in order to reach well-supported conclusions. However, there is emerging evidence that RCTs are subject to biases which can overestimate or underestimate the true treatment effect, due to flaws in the study design characteristics of such trials. The extent to which this holds true in oral health RCTs, which have some unique design characteristics compared to RCTs in other health fields, is unclear. As such, we aim to examine the empirical evidence quantifying the extent of bias associated with methodological and non-methodological characteristics in oral health RCTs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We plan to perform a meta-epidemiological study, where a sample size of 60 meta-analyses (MAs) including approximately 600 RCTs will be selected. The MAs will be randomly obtained from the Oral Health Database of Systematic Reviews using a random number table; and will be considered for inclusion if they include a minimum of five RCTs, and examine a therapeutic intervention related to one of the recognised dental specialties. RCTs identified in selected MAs will be subsequently included if their study design includes a comparison between an intervention group and a placebo group or another intervention group. Data will be extracted from selected trials included in MAs based on a number of methodological and non-methodological characteristics. Moreover, the risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect size estimates and measures of variability for the main outcome will be extracted from each RCT included in selected MAs, and a two-level analysis will be conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach with a random effects model to allow for intra-MA and inter-MA heterogeneity.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The intended audiences of the findings will include dental clinicians, oral health researchers, policymakers and graduate students. The aforementioned will be introduced to the findings through workshops, seminars, round table discussions and targeted individual meetings. Other opportunities for knowledge transfer will be pursued such as key dental conferences. Finally, the results will be published as a scientific report in a dental peer-reviewed journal.

The influence of patients' decisions on treatment planning in restorative dentistry

As part of treatment planning, options are presented to patients by dentists. An informal discussion takes place involving a cost-benefit analysis and a treatment plan is agreed. Evidence-based dentistry takes into account the best available literature, clinical experience and patient factors to guide the dentist. Dentists exert considerable influence on which treatment modality is selected. This paper focuses on the importance of patient factors which lead to less than ideal, clinically acceptable, treatment plans that nevertheless give patient satisfaction over the long term. Though no universally accepted healthcare model exists for restorative dentistry, patients' decisions are most influenced by their relationship with their dentist over factors such as time, access and cost. Letters should be sent to patients clarifying the nature of all proposed options, including advantages and disadvantages, complications, success rates, biological and financial costs and what happens if no treatment is carried out.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Many psychological and social determinants influence patients'values and decision-making when planning for restorative dentistry. These lead to a treatment plan agreed between the patient and the dentist. Often an element of compromise is considered acceptable to both parties when the evidence would suggest an alternative treatment to be preferable.

A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study

Objectives

To identify all systematic reviews (SRs) published in the domain of oral health research and describe them in terms of their epidemiological and descriptive characteristics.

Design

Cross sectional, descriptive study.

Methods

An electronic search of seven databases was performed from inception through May 2012; bibliographies of relevant publications were also reviewed. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were oral health SRs defined as therapeutic or non-therapeutic investigations that studied a topic or an intervention related to dental, oral or craniofacial diseases/disorders. Data were extracted from all the SRs based on a number of epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. Data were analysed descriptively for all the SRs, within each of the nine dental specialities, and for Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs separately.

Results

1,188 oral health (126 Cochrane and 1062 non-Cochrane) SRs published from 1991 through May 2012 were identified, encompassing the nine dental specialties. Over half (n = 676; 56.9%) of the SRs were published in specialty oral health journals, with almost all (n = 1,178; 99.2%) of the SRs published in English and almost none of the non-Cochrane SRs (n = 11; 0.9%) consisting of updates of previously published SRs. 75.3% of the SRs were categorized as therapeutic, with 64.5% examining non-drug interventions, while approximately half (n = 150/294; 51%) of the non-therapeutic SRs were classified as epidemiological SRs. The SRs included a median of 15 studies, with a meta-analysis conducted in 43.6%, in which a median of 9 studies/1 randomized trial were included in the largest meta-analysis conducted. Funding was received for 25.1% of the SRs, including nearly three-quarters (n = 96; 76.2%) of the Cochrane SRs.

Conclusion

Epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of the 1,188 oral health SRs varied across the nine dental specialties and by SR category (Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane). There is a clear need for more updates of SRs in all the dental specialties.

Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals

The aim of this study was to investigate the reporting completeness of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading dental specialty journals. Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify SRs published in seven dental specialty journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Abstract reporting completeness was evaluated using a checklist derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (prisma) guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Two-hundred and eighteen SR abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions (94%), objectives (96%), data sources (81%), eligibility criteria (77%), and conclusions (97%) was adequate in the majority of reviews. However, inadequate reporting of participants (18%), results (42%), effect size (14%), level of significance (60%), and trial registration (100%) was commonplace. The mean overall reporting score was 79.1% (95% CI, 77.6-80.6). Only journal of publication was a significant predictor of overall reporting, with inferior results for all journals relative to Cochrane reviews, with scores ranging from -4.3% (95% CI, -8.74 to 0.08) to -35.6% (95% CI, -42.0 to -24.3) for the International Journal of Prosthodontics and the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, respectively. Improved reporting of dental SR abstracts is needed and should be encouraged, as these abstracts may underpin influential clinical decisions.

Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011

OBJECTIVE

An increasing amount of research and guidelines has been published on search methodology and the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews. This research assessed whether this has lead to any improvements in the reporting and quality of searching in systematic reviews of adverse effects.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

All records within Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were scanned for systematic reviews of adverse effects. Data were then extracted on the methods used for information retrieval in these reviews and a descriptive analysis conducted by publication year.

RESULTS

A total of 849 reviews published from 1994 to 2011 met the inclusion criteria. There has been a significant increase (P<0.001) in the number of adverse effects reviews per year from 1994 (n=5) to 2010 (n=104). Some improvements were apparent, such as an increase in the number of databases searched and fewer date and language restrictions applied. However, there has been an increase in reviews limited to data from randomized controlled trials, whereas the reporting of search strategies could still be improved further, with only 9% (74/849) of the reviews reporting reproducible searches.

CONCLUSION

Some improvements in searching systematic reviews of adverse effects are apparent; however, poor reporting of search strategies remains a great obstacle to readers.

Development of a core set of outcomes for randomized controlled trials with multiple outcomes--example of pulp treatments of primary teeth for extensive decay in children

Objectives

Evidence-based comparisons of interventions can be challenging because of the diversity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to describe outcomes in RCTs assessing pulp treatments for primary teeth and to develop a core set of component outcomes to be part of composite outcome defining the failure of a pulp treatment.

Methods

We systematically reviewed articles of RCTs comparing pulp treatments for primary molars published up to February 2012. We abstracted all outcomes assessed in each trial, then used a small-group consensus process to group similar outcomes, which were reduced to a composite outcome of failure of a pulp treatment by a 3-round Delphi process involving expert authors and dentists.

Results

We included 47 reports of RCTs in the review, for 83 reported outcomes (median 11 outcomes per RCT). These outcomes were grouped into 24 overarching outcome categories. We contacted 210 experts for the Delphi process and 25% to 30% participated. The process identified the following 5 component outcomes as part of a composite outcome of failure of a pulp treatment: soft-tissue pathology, pain, pathologic mobility, pathologic radiolucency and pathologic root resorption.

Conclusions

RCTs of pulp treatments for primary teeth investigate diverse outcomes. Our consensus process, involving clinicians but no patient, allowed for compiling a core set of component outcomes to define the composite outcome failure of a pulp treatment for primary teeth.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews represent the highest form of evidence in the current hierarchy of evidence-based dentistry. Critical analysis of published systematic reviews may help to analyze their strengths and weaknesses and to identify areas that need future improvement. The aim of this overview is to determine and compare the quality of systematic reviews published in the field of periodontal regeneration using established checklists, such as the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted to retrieve reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans. A total of 14 systematic reviews were selected using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of the selected reviews using AMSTAR guidelines. Each article was given an AMSTAR total score, based on the number of AMSTAR criteria that were fulfilled. The quality of included reviews was further assessed using a checklist proposed in 2003.

RESULTS

Only one of the selected systematic reviews satisfied all the AMSTAR guidelines, whereas two reviews satisfied just two of the 11 items. This study shows that published systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration exhibit significant structural and methodologic variability. Quality assessment using the additional checklist further confirmed the variability in the way systematic reviews were conducted and/or reported.

CONCLUSION

Consideration of guidelines for quality assessment, such as AMSTAR, when designing and conducting systematic reviews may increase the validity and clinical applicability of future reviews.

Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

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 (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.

What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities

The authors developed and tested a framework for identifying evidence gaps and prioritizing comparative effectiveness research by using a combination of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. In phase 1 of the project, reported elsewhere, 45 clinical questions on the management of primary open-angle glaucoma were derived from practice guidelines and prioritized by using a 2-round Delphi survey of clinicians. On the basis of the clinicians' responses, 9 questions were classified as high-priority. In phase 2, reported here, systematic reviews that addressed the 45 clinical questions were identified. The reviews were classified as at low, high, or unclear risk of bias, and evidence gaps (in which no systematic review was at low risk of bias) were identified. The following comparative effectiveness research agenda is proposed: Two of the 9 high-priority questions require new primary research (such as a randomized, controlled trial) and 4 require a new systematic review. The utility and limitations of the framework and future adaptations are discussed.

An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS)

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are not an assembly of anecdotes but a distillation of current best available evidence on a particular topic and as such have an important role to play in evidence-based healthcare. A substantial proportion of these systematic reviews focus on interventions, and are able to provide clinicians with the opportunity to understand and translate the best available evidence on the effects of these healthcare interventions into clinical practice. The importance of systematic reviews in summarising and identifying the gaps in evidence which might inform new research initiatives is also widely acknowledged. Their potential impact on practice and research makes their methodological quality especially important as it may directly influence their utility for clinicians, patients and policy makers. The objectives of this study were to identify systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS) and to evaluate their methodological quality using the evaluation tool, AMSTAR.

METHODS

Potentially eligible systematic reviews in JAOS were identified through an electronic search of the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO). Details of the relevant aspects of methodology as reported in these systematic reviews were extracted from the full text publications. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the AMSTAR questionnaire.

RESULTS

Five systematic reviews were identified, one of which was subsequently excluded as it was a review of a diagnostic test. Summary AMSTAR scores for the four included reviews were: 1, 5, 2 and 4 out of a maximum score of 11 (range 1-5, mean 3) with only one of the reviews scoring 5.

CONCLUSION

AMSTAR evaluation of the methodological quality of the relatively small number of systematic reviews published in JAOS illustrated that there was room for improvement. Pre-publication and editorial appraisal of future systematic reviews might benefit from the application of tools such as AMSTAR and is to be recommended.

Evidence-based periodontal plastic surgery: an assessment of quality of systematic reviews in the treatment of recession-type defects

OBJECTIVE

To assess methods, quality and outcomes of systematic reviews (SRs) conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of root coverage (RC) procedures in the treatment of recession-type defects (RTD).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to and including April 2010 to identify SRs investigating the effectiveness/efficacy of surgical interventions for the treatment of patients with RTD. Searching was conducted independently by two reviewers, and data extraction was based on the methodological criteria applied and on the effects of interventions reported by each SR. The checklist proposed by Glenny and colleagues, the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire and the "Assessment of Multiple systematic Reviews", instrument were used to assess the quality of SRs. Additionally, the methodological criteria applied by included reviews were compared with those proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Search strategy identified 716 potentially eligible articles, of which 12 papers regarding 10 SRs were included in the study. Results from different SRs showed that subepithelial connective tissue grafts associated or not to coronally advanced flaps can be used to reduce recession depth and improve the width of keratinized tissue. All quality assessment tools showed that most of the SRs were of good methodological quality, but they also highlighted key points that could be improved in future reviews. Only two SRs followed in full the guidelines proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

All SRs agree that RC may be anticipated by different surgical procedures. However, differences in the methodological quality between reviews were quite evident, and thus making a clear indication that there is a need of standardization of the methods that will be applied by future SRs. As a result, a standardized checklist for reporting SRs was proposed by the authors.

Cochrane reviews of randomized trials of fluoride therapies for preventing dental caries

AIM

To present the evidence summarized in the Cochrane fluoride reviews.

STUDY DESIGN

An overview of the results of selected systematic reviews.

METHODS

Relevant systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were identified by searching 'The Cochrane Library issue 4, 2008', using the terms 'Fluoride' and 'Caries'. Complete Cochrane reviews assessing the effectiveness of any fluoride-based intervention for preventing caries were selected, and their main features and findings were reviewed.

RESULTS

14 papers were identified of which 11 were relevant full-text reviews. The results were assessed of 7 reviews published from 2002 to 2004 concerning the relative effectiveness of 4 topical fluoride treatments (toothpastes, gels, varnishes and mouthrinses) in preventing caries in children and adolescents. Comparisons in these reviews were made against non-fluoride controls, against each other, and against different combinations. Findings from 4 reviews published between 2004 and 2006, assessing other fluoride modalities (slow release devices, milk), specific comparison/site (fluoride varnishes versus sealants in occlusal surfaces), and particular population and caries outcome (fluorides for white spot lesions in orthodontic patients) were also assessed. The 7 reviews confirm a clear and similar effectiveness of topical fluoride toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels and varnishes for preventing caries, and show that additional caries reduction can be expected when another topical fluoride is combined with fluoride toothpaste. Evidence is insufficient to confirm the effectiveness of slow release fluoride devices and fluoridated milk. The comparative effectiveness of other modes of delivering fluoride, such as to orthodontic patients is also as yet unclear. Fissure sealants appear more effective than fluoride varnish for preventing occlusal caries but the size of the difference is unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of topical fluorides are firmly established based on a sizeable body of evidence from randomized controlled trials. The size of the reductions in caries increment in both the permanent and the primary dentitions emphasizes the importance of including topical fluoride delivered through toothpastes, rinses, gels or varnishes in any caries preventive program. However, trials to discern potential adverse effects are required, and data on acceptability. Better quality research is needed to reach clearer conclusions on the effects of slow release fluoride devices, milk fluoridation, sealants in comparison with fluoride varnishes, and of different modes of delivering fluoride to orthodontic patients.

Critically appraising systematic reviews

Critical appraisal is one of the key skills of evidence-based practice and is now increasingly being taught in dental schools. Here we outline the key principles of appraising systematic reviews.

The adjunctive use of platelet-rich plasma in the therapy of periodontal intraosseous defects: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The evidence for the efficacy of the adjunctive use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in periodontal intraosseous defects has not been systematically evaluated. The objective of this review was to address the focused question, 'What is the efficacy, with respect to clinical, radiographical and patient-centred outcomes, of combinations of PRP with other therapeutic bioactive agents/procedures, compared with the efficacy of the same agents/procedures without the adjunctive use of PRP in the therapy of periodontal intraosseous defects in patients with chronic periodontitis and without systemic diseases that could potentially influence the outcome of periodontal therapy?' by performing a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) published in the dental literature in any language, up to and including September 2008.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data sources principally included electronic databases, manually searched journals and contact with experts. In the first phase of study selection, the titles and abstracts, and in the second phase, full papers were screened independently and in duplicate by two reviewers.

RESULTS

In the first phase, 6124 potentially relevant titles and abstracts were examined. In the second phase, the full text of 20 publications was thoroughly evaluated. Eventually, 10 RCTs were selected.

CONCLUSION

Diverse outcomes (positive and negative) have been reported for the efficacy of PRP combined with various therapeutic bioactive agents/procedures, reflecting the limited and heterogeneous data available and possibly suggesting that the specific selection of agents/procedures combined with PRP could be important. Additional research on the efficacy of each specific combination of PRP is necessary.