Journal Article

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

Padhraig S. Fleming, Jadbinder Seehra, Argy Polychronopoulou, Zbys Fedorowicz and Nikolaos Pandis

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 35, issue 2, pages 244-248
Published in print April 2013 | ISSN: 0141-5387
Published online April 2012 | e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjs016
Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

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.

Journal Article.  2517 words. 

Subjects: Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.