Research: University of the WitwatersrandUniversity of the Witwatersrand · Faculty of Health SciencesSouth Africa · Johannesburg
University NijmegenAtraumatic restorative treatment · PhDNetherlands · Nijmegen
University of LeipzigDentistry · BDS (Staatsexamen)Germany · Leipzig / Freistaat Sachsen
Scopus Author ID 6603131822
Answer added in Methodology6 Can anyone please explain the basic differences between systemic reviews and meta-analysis?By Praveen Anand · Indian Council of Medical ResearchSteffen Mickenautsch · University of the WitwatersrandA meta-analysis is a statistic method to pool effect estimates from individual studies to one 'meta' result. This is only possible if the inter-study ... [more]A meta-analysis is a statistic method to pool effect estimates from individual studies to one 'meta' result. This is only possible if the inter-study heterogeneity is low. Systematic reviews are reviews of the entire literature (at least as much as possible) based on a systematic literature search strategy. Depending on the level of heterogeneity between the found studies a systematic review my include meta-analysis as statistical tool (or not). In the past systematic reviews were regarded as 'meta-analyses'. This is technically wrong and only creates confusion.Following
Article: Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high- viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth: a systematic review of Chinese trials[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The last update of this systematic review was assumed to be at risk of language bias, as it did not include the search of major Chinese medical databases. REVIEW OBJECTIVE: This systematic review addition with focus on the Chinese dental literature aimed to answer the question as to whether, in patients with carious cavities of any class in primary and permanent teeth, ART restorations have a higher failure rate than amalgam restorations placed using conventional rotary instruments in tooth cavities of the same size, type of dentition and follow-up period? SEARCH STRATEGY: Databases: Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, formerly China Academic Journals), VIP Information and WanFang Data; reference lists of included articles were searched; Strings of search terms were constructed in simplified Chinese. In addition, the English search term “ART” was used for database search; SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective, clinical controlled trials, with focus relevant to review objective and reporting on computable data with a follow-up period of at least one year were selected from the Chinese dental literature. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened and extracted data from, and assessed the risk of bias in, the selected trial reports. Individual datasets were extracted from the trial results and analyzed regarding in-between-dataset heterogeneity and effect size estimates. The investigated outcome was restoration failure. Internal trial validity was assessed in terms of selection-, performance-, detection-, attrition-, publication- and reporting bias. Research gaps in the precision and consistency of the results were evaluated. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen trials were accepted for review. Of these 36 individual dichotomous datasets could be extracted and analyzed. The majority of the results showed no differences between both types of intervention. High risk of selection-, performance-, detection- and attrition bias was established. Existing research gaps were mainly due to lack of trials and small sample size. CONCLUSION: The current evidence from the Chinese dental literature indicates that the failure rate of high-viscosity GIC/ART restorations is not higher than, but similar to that of conventional amalgam fillings after periods longer than one year. These results appear to corroborate the conclusions drawn during the previous systematic review update. There is a high risk that these results are affected by bias, and thus confirmation by further trials with suitably high number of participants is needed.J Minim Interv Dent. 10/2012; 2012(5):8.
Article: Quality of English literature reviews concerning longevity of direct posterior restorations in permanent teeth – a systematic review of reviews [Protocol]Steffen Mickenautsch, Veerasamy Yengopal[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: REVIEW AIM: The aim of this systematic review is to appraise the quality of existing reviews in the English dental literature in regard to general review methodology, as well as specifically to the comparison method applied, during the last 20 years concerning the compared longevity of different types of direct restorations placed in permanent posterior teeth and subsequently the validity of such reviews' conclusions.Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry. 10/2012; 5:416-423.
Article: Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high- viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth: a systematic review of Chinese trials [protocol][show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on the 10 July 2012 under registration number CRD42012002621 (Available online from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012002621). This protocol comprises an addition of an existing systematic review report: Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth: a systematic review update -III. J Minim Interv Dent 2012; 5: 273-331 and provides a quantitative systematic review of the Chinese literature to the topic.J Minim Interv Dent. 08/2012; 5(7):355 - 67.
Article: SYSTEM Research note on: Initial observations of diagnostic accuracy concerning quantitative testing for selection bias in RCTs -IISteffen Mickenautsch[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: Selection bias interferes with the internal validity of clinical trials and leads to favoring one clinical outcome over another. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment of such sequence have been proposed to limit the risk of selection bias. However, selection bias can be introduced based on knowledge of the directly observed random sequence when allocation concealment is subverted. Such subversion may statistically be detected in randomised control trials with dichotomous outcomes through regression analysis of the reversed propensity score (RPS) sequence together with the sequence of the observed dichotomous outcome per patient. PROBLEM: Preliminary investigations have shown promising accuracy of RPS based selection bias testing in simulated randomised control trials (S-RCTs). However, these results were not presented in form of summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curves that may have eased the graphical recognition of the achieved test accuracy.J Minim Interv Dent. 08/2012; 5(7):368 - 72.
Steffen Mickenautsch[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: The dichotomous outcome of a clinical intervention may be defined as success versus failure and subsequently expressed in the number of intervention successes and failures. Success and failure numbers of two clinical interventions may be compared and the resulting effect estimate expressed either as Risk ratio (RR) or Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The expression of effect estimates in Risk ratio appears to be easier to interpret. Also, Risk ratio of success rates implies the "risk of success", which seems counter-intuitive from a linguistic point of view and it has been suggested that failures are of more interest for interventions that aim to heal or have positive effects, while successes or survivals are of more interest in circumstances of harm. Based on these considerations, the comparison of two intervention indented to heal based on their number of failures and the expression of the resulting effect estimate in Risk ratio, appears to be most appropriate. PROBLEM: Pure logical conjecture may not provide sufficient reason for choosing comparison of failures above successes and Risk ratio above Odds ratio and a more empirical basis for an informed choice is needed.J Minim Interv Dent. 08/2012; 5(7):373 - 6.