Reviewbronze2015

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

46 citations0/0 files storedEuropean Journal of Orthodontics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Clinical practice guidelines implementation

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 46 citations exist upstream.

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2011GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence 2011GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision 1997Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews 2011GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency 2011GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness 2011GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias 2013Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis

Cited by

2018Outcome reporting discrepancies between trial entries and published final reports of orthodontic randomized controlled trials 2018Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontics 2017The use of tailored subheadings was successful in enhancing compliance with CONSORT in a dental journal 2015Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological review 2019Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.