HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 137, No 9, 1252-1257. © 2006 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplemental Data Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Major, M. P. Articles by Flores-Mir, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Major, M. P. Articles by Flores-Mir, C. Related Collections Practice Management

Background. Increasing numbers of systematic reviews are published each year, though little has been done to evaluate their search and selection methodology.

Methods. The authors searched dental systematic reviews published between Jan. 1, 2000, and July 14, 2005, for descriptions of how researchers used multiple electronic databases and secondary searches. They evaluated search and selection methods of identified systematic reviews against the guidelines found in the 2005 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Results. The authors identified 220 unique dental systematic reviews. They found that all aspects of search and selection methodology had improved. In 2005, most systematic reviews documented database names and search dates (90 percent), electronic search terms (95 percent) and inclusion-exclusion criteria (95 percent), and most employed secondary searching (100 percent). Many still failed to search more than MEDLINE (20 percent), document the search strategy (20 percent), use multiple reviewers for selecting studies (25 percent) and include all languages (39 percent).

Conclusions and Clinical Implications. Systematic review methodology is improving, though key components frequently are absent. Reviews should be read critically and in consideration of the methodological flaws.

Key Words: Dentistry; evidence-based practice; systematic review

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Liberati, D. G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. C. Gotzsche, J. P.A. Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P. J. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, and D. Moher The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration Ann Intern Med, August 18, 2009; 151(4): W-65 - W-94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Liberati, D. G Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. C Gotzsche, J. P A Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P J Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, and D. Moher The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration BMJ, July 21, 2009; 339(jul21_1): b2700 - b2700. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				M. P. Major, S. Warren, and C. Flores-Mir Survey of Systematic Review Authors in Dentistry: Challenges in Methodology and Reporting J Dent Educ., April 1, 2009; 73(4): 471 - 482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. L. Patton, J. B. Epstein, and A. R. Kerr Authors' response J Am Dent Assoc, October 1, 2008; 139(10): 1306 - 1308. [Full Text] [PDF]