Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic‐related systematic reviews
Identifieur interne : 002A60 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 002A59; suivant : 002A61Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic‐related systematic reviews
Auteurs : T. Aziz [Canada] ; S. Compton [Canada] ; U. Nassar [Canada] ; D. Matthews [Canada] ; K. Ansari [Canada] ; C. Flores-Mir [Canada]Source :
- Journal of Oral Rehabilitation [ 0305-182X ] ; 2013-04.
Descripteurs français
- Wicri :
- topic : Base de données.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Amstar, Amstar scores, Amstar tool, Blackwell publishing, Bragger, Citation, Citation numbers, Citation scores, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical application, Clinical decisions, Clinical trials, Cochrane, Cochrane database syst, Cochrane reviews, Complication rates, Coulthard, Database, Dent, Dental implants, Dental prostheses, Dental prosthesis, Dentistry, Denture, Descriptive characteristics, Different times, Different types, Edentulous, Electronic databases, Embase, Esposito, Exclusion criteria, Full studies, Google, Google scholar, Grusovin, Hand search, Impact factor, Implant, Implant placement, Implant therapy, Initial screening, Lang, Literature review, Mandibular, Mandibular overdentures, Maxillofac, Medline, Methodological, Methodological quality, Methodological quality assessment, Multiple reviews, Ndings, Observation period, Oral implantol, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral rehabil, Overdentures, Partial dentures, Partial score, Patient satisfaction, Pjetursson, Plo, Predictor variables, Prosthesis, Prosthet, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic, Prosthetic component, Prosthodont, Prosthodontics, Publication bias, Randomized, Rehabil, Scopus, Single crowns, Survival rates, Syst, Systematic, Systematic literature review, Systematic review, Systematic reviews, Total amstar scores, Website, Worthington, Zwahlen.
- Teeft :
- Amstar, Amstar scores, Amstar tool, Blackwell publishing, Bragger, Citation, Citation numbers, Citation scores, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical application, Clinical decisions, Clinical trials, Cochrane, Cochrane database syst, Cochrane reviews, Complication rates, Coulthard, Database, Dent, Dental implants, Dental prostheses, Dental prosthesis, Dentistry, Denture, Descriptive characteristics, Different times, Different types, Edentulous, Electronic databases, Embase, Esposito, Exclusion criteria, Full studies, Google, Google scholar, Grusovin, Hand search, Impact factor, Implant, Implant placement, Implant therapy, Initial screening, Lang, Literature review, Mandibular, Mandibular overdentures, Maxillofac, Medline, Methodological, Methodological quality, Methodological quality assessment, Multiple reviews, Ndings, Observation period, Oral implantol, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral rehabil, Overdentures, Partial dentures, Partial score, Patient satisfaction, Pjetursson, Plo, Predictor variables, Prosthesis, Prosthet, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic, Prosthetic component, Prosthodont, Prosthodontics, Publication bias, Randomized, Rehabil, Scopus, Single crowns, Survival rates, Syst, Systematic, Systematic literature review, Systematic review, Systematic reviews, Total amstar scores, Website, Worthington, Zwahlen.
Abstract
Ideally, healthcare systematic reviews (SRs) should be beneficial to practicing professionals in making evidence‐based clinical decisions. However, the conclusions drawn from SRs are directly related to the quality of the SR and of the included studies. The aim was to investigate the methodological quality and key descriptive characteristics of SRs published in prosthodontics. Methodological quality was analysed using the Assessment of Multiple Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Several electronic resources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and American Dental Association's Evidence‐based Dentistry website) were searched. In total 106 SRs were located. Key descriptive characteristics and methodological quality features were gathered and assessed, and descriptive and inferential statistical testing performed. Most SRs in this sample originated from the European continent followed by North America. Two to five authors conducted most SRs; the majority was affiliated with academic institutions and had prior experience publishing SRs. The majority of SRs were published in specialty dentistry journals, with implant or implant‐related topics, the primary topics of interest for most. According to AMSTAR, most quality aspects were adequately fulfilled by less than half of the reviews. Publication bias and grey literature searches were the most poorly adhered components. Overall, the methodological quality of the prosthodontic‐related systematic was deemed limited. Future recommendations would include authors to have prior training in conducting SRs and for journals to include a universal checklist that should be adhered to address all key characteristics of an unbiased SR process.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12028
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 006225
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 006225
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 000613
- to stream Main, to step Merge: 002A72
- to stream Main, to step Curation: 002A60
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic‐related systematic reviews</title><author><name sortKey="Aziz, T" sort="Aziz, T" uniqKey="Aziz T" first="T." last="Aziz">T. Aziz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Compton, S" sort="Compton, S" uniqKey="Compton S" first="S." last="Compton">S. Compton</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nassar, U" sort="Nassar, U" uniqKey="Nassar U" first="U." last="Nassar">U. Nassar</name></author><author><name sortKey="Matthews, D" sort="Matthews, D" uniqKey="Matthews D" first="D." last="Matthews">D. Matthews</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ansari, K" sort="Ansari, K" uniqKey="Ansari K" first="K." last="Ansari">K. Ansari</name></author><author><name sortKey="Flores Ir, C" sort="Flores Ir, C" uniqKey="Flores Ir C" first="C." last="Flores-Mir">C. Flores-Mir</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:C5C9ABA79B9A7992CE826E82FEE10D474200A88B</idno><date when="2013" year="2013">2013</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/joor.12028</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/C5C9ABA79B9A7992CE826E82FEE10D474200A88B/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">006225</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">006225</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">006225</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">000613</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">000613</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">0305-182X:2013:Aziz T:methodological:quality:and</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">002A72</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">002A60</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">002A60</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic‐related systematic reviews</title><author><name sortKey="Aziz, T" sort="Aziz, T" uniqKey="Aziz T" first="T." last="Aziz">T. Aziz</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Canada</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Edmonton</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Compton, S" sort="Compton, S" uniqKey="Compton S" first="S." last="Compton">S. Compton</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Canada</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Edmonton</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Nassar, U" sort="Nassar, U" uniqKey="Nassar U" first="U." last="Nassar">U. Nassar</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Canada</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Edmonton</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Matthews, D" sort="Matthews, D" uniqKey="Matthews D" first="D." last="Matthews">D. Matthews</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Canada</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Halifax</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Ansari, K" sort="Ansari, K" uniqKey="Ansari K" first="K." last="Ansari">K. Ansari</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Canada</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Edmonton</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Flores Ir, C" sort="Flores Ir, C" uniqKey="Flores Ir C" first="C." last="Flores-Mir">C. Flores-Mir</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Canada</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Edmonton</wicri:noRegion></affiliation><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country wicri:rule="url">Canada</country></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">40</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="263">263</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="278">278</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">16</biblScope><date type="published" when="2013-04">2013-04</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Amstar</term><term>Amstar scores</term><term>Amstar tool</term><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Bragger</term><term>Citation</term><term>Citation numbers</term><term>Citation scores</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical application</term><term>Clinical decisions</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>Cochrane</term><term>Cochrane database syst</term><term>Cochrane reviews</term><term>Complication rates</term><term>Coulthard</term><term>Database</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental prostheses</term><term>Dental prosthesis</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Descriptive characteristics</term><term>Different times</term><term>Different types</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Electronic databases</term><term>Embase</term><term>Esposito</term><term>Exclusion criteria</term><term>Full studies</term><term>Google</term><term>Google scholar</term><term>Grusovin</term><term>Hand search</term><term>Impact factor</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant therapy</term><term>Initial screening</term><term>Lang</term><term>Literature review</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Medline</term><term>Methodological</term><term>Methodological quality</term><term>Methodological quality assessment</term><term>Multiple reviews</term><term>Ndings</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Oral implantol</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral rehabil</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Partial score</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Pjetursson</term><term>Plo</term><term>Predictor variables</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic component</term><term>Prosthodont</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Publication bias</term><term>Randomized</term><term>Rehabil</term><term>Scopus</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Survival rates</term><term>Syst</term><term>Systematic</term><term>Systematic literature review</term><term>Systematic review</term><term>Systematic reviews</term><term>Total amstar scores</term><term>Website</term><term>Worthington</term><term>Zwahlen</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Amstar</term><term>Amstar scores</term><term>Amstar tool</term><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Bragger</term><term>Citation</term><term>Citation numbers</term><term>Citation scores</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical application</term><term>Clinical decisions</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>Cochrane</term><term>Cochrane database syst</term><term>Cochrane reviews</term><term>Complication rates</term><term>Coulthard</term><term>Database</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental prostheses</term><term>Dental prosthesis</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Descriptive characteristics</term><term>Different times</term><term>Different types</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Electronic databases</term><term>Embase</term><term>Esposito</term><term>Exclusion criteria</term><term>Full studies</term><term>Google</term><term>Google scholar</term><term>Grusovin</term><term>Hand search</term><term>Impact factor</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant therapy</term><term>Initial screening</term><term>Lang</term><term>Literature review</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Medline</term><term>Methodological</term><term>Methodological quality</term><term>Methodological quality assessment</term><term>Multiple reviews</term><term>Ndings</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Oral implantol</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral rehabil</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Partial score</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Pjetursson</term><term>Plo</term><term>Predictor variables</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic component</term><term>Prosthodont</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Publication bias</term><term>Randomized</term><term>Rehabil</term><term>Scopus</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Survival rates</term><term>Syst</term><term>Systematic</term><term>Systematic literature review</term><term>Systematic review</term><term>Systematic reviews</term><term>Total amstar scores</term><term>Website</term><term>Worthington</term><term>Zwahlen</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Wicri" type="topic" xml:lang="fr"><term>Base de données</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Ideally, healthcare systematic reviews (SRs) should be beneficial to practicing professionals in making evidence‐based clinical decisions. However, the conclusions drawn from SRs are directly related to the quality of the SR and of the included studies. The aim was to investigate the methodological quality and key descriptive characteristics of SRs published in prosthodontics. Methodological quality was analysed using the Assessment of Multiple Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Several electronic resources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and American Dental Association's Evidence‐based Dentistry website) were searched. In total 106 SRs were located. Key descriptive characteristics and methodological quality features were gathered and assessed, and descriptive and inferential statistical testing performed. Most SRs in this sample originated from the European continent followed by North America. Two to five authors conducted most SRs; the majority was affiliated with academic institutions and had prior experience publishing SRs. The majority of SRs were published in specialty dentistry journals, with implant or implant‐related topics, the primary topics of interest for most. According to AMSTAR, most quality aspects were adequately fulfilled by less than half of the reviews. Publication bias and grey literature searches were the most poorly adhered components. Overall, the methodological quality of the prosthodontic‐related systematic was deemed limited. Future recommendations would include authors to have prior training in conducting SRs and for journals to include a universal checklist that should be adhered to address all key characteristics of an unbiased SR process.</div></front></TEI><affiliations><list><country><li>Canada</li></country></list><tree><country name="Canada"><noRegion><name sortKey="Aziz, T" sort="Aziz, T" uniqKey="Aziz T" first="T." last="Aziz">T. Aziz</name></noRegion><name sortKey="Ansari, K" sort="Ansari, K" uniqKey="Ansari K" first="K." last="Ansari">K. Ansari</name><name sortKey="Compton, S" sort="Compton, S" uniqKey="Compton S" first="S." last="Compton">S. Compton</name><name sortKey="Flores Ir, C" sort="Flores Ir, C" uniqKey="Flores Ir C" first="C." last="Flores-Mir">C. Flores-Mir</name><name sortKey="Flores Ir, C" sort="Flores Ir, C" uniqKey="Flores Ir C" first="C." last="Flores-Mir">C. Flores-Mir</name><name sortKey="Matthews, D" sort="Matthews, D" uniqKey="Matthews D" first="D." last="Matthews">D. Matthews</name><name sortKey="Nassar, U" sort="Nassar, U" uniqKey="Nassar U" first="U." last="Nassar">U. Nassar</name></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002A60 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 002A60 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:C5C9ABA79B9A7992CE826E82FEE10D474200A88B
|texte= Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic‐related systematic reviews
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |