SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Evidence-based orthodontics: Too many systematic reviews, too few trials
9 references·7 citing·52 second hop
Evidence-based orthodontics: Too many systematic reviews, too few trials (2019)Evidence-based orthodontics: Too many sys…When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist (2016)When and how to update system…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological review (2015)Risk of bias and magnitude of…Basic study design influences the results of orthodontic clinical investigations (2015)Basic study design influences…Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part II – Is all that glitters gold? (2014)Meta-analysis for orthodontis…Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting (2010)Clinical trials should begin …Relative Citation Impact of Various Study Designs in the Health Sciences (2005)Relative Citation Impact of V…Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research (2005)Contradicted and Initially St…Large Trials vs Meta-analysis of Smaller Trials (1996)Large Trials vs Meta-analysis…Do statistical heterogeneity methods impact the results of meta- analyses? A meta epidemiological study (2024)Do statistical heterogeneity …International trends of orthodontic publications: A bibliometric observational study of the last decade (2011-2020) (2023)International trends of ortho…Systematic reviews in orthodontics: A fresh look to promote renewal and reduce redundancy (2022)Systematic reviews in orthodo…The certainty of the evidence in oral health has not improved according to GRADE: a meta-epidemiological study (2021)The certainty of the evidence…Prediction intervals reporting in orthodontic meta-analyses (2021)Prediction intervals reportin…Reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews (2020)Reporting of the methodologic…Methodological quality and risk of bias in orthodontic systematic reviews using AMSTAR and ROBIS (2020)Methodological quality and ri…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)The Characteristics and Level of Evidence of Clinical Studies Published in 5 Leading Orthodontic Journals (2019)What is a meta-epidemiological study? Analysis of published literature indicated heterogeneous study designs and definitions (2020)The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta‐analysis (2023)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis (2002)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Bias from historical control groups used in orthodontic research: a meta-epidemiological study (2016)Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates (2016)Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study (2024)Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction (1992)Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias (1994)A random‐effects regression model for meta‐analysis (1995)Updating and Refining Prevalence Estimates of Disordered Gambling Behaviour in the United States and Canada (2001)Happy People Live Longer: Subjective Well-Being Contributes to Health and Longevity (2010)Evaluation of various estimators for standardized mean difference in meta‐analysis (2020)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews (2007)A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials (2011)Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important? (2020)SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025)A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction (1992)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies (2001)Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review (2008)Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality (2018)Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines (2021)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis (2007)Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated (2008)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)Registered trials report less beneficial treatment effects than unregistered ones: a meta-epidemiological study in orthodontics (2018)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)Updating search strategies for systematic reviews using EndNote (2017)Does Talking on a Cell Phone, With a Passenger, or Dialing Affect Driving Performance? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies (2018)Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses (2019)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2009)ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Language bias in orthodontic systematic reviews: A meta-epidemiological study (2024)Reported methodological quality of medical systematic reviews: Development of an assessment tool (ReMarQ) and meta-research study (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2005Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research1,465 cited
  • 2005Relative Citation Impact of Various Study Designs in the Health Sciences497 cited
  • 2016When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist424 cited
  • 1996Large Trials vs Meta-analysis of Smaller Trials336 cited
  • 2010Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting166 cited
  • 2015Basic study design influences the results of orthodontic clinical investigations108 cited
  • 2014Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part II – Is all that glitters gold?58 cited
  • 2015Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological review35 cited

Cited by

  • 2020Methodological quality and risk of bias in orthodontic systematic reviews using AMSTAR and ROBIS28 cited
  • 2023International trends of orthodontic publications: A bibliometric observational study of the last decade (2011-2020)16 cited
  • 2024Do statistical heterogeneity methods impact the results of meta- analyses? A meta epidemiological study14 cited
  • 2021The certainty of the evidence in oral health has not improved according to GRADE: a meta-epidemiological study10 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

  • 2021Prediction intervals reporting in orthodontic meta-analyses9 cited
  • 2022Systematic reviews in orthodontics: A fresh look to promote renewal and reduce redundancy9 cited
  • 2020Reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews9 cited