Meta-analysis in oral health care.

Institute for Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Riehen/Basel, Switzerland.
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 03/1999; 87(2):135-41. DOI: 10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70262-3
Source: PubMed
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: It is difficult to determine the effectiveness or potential harm of dental therapies. Thus, any tools able to condense reliable scientific information would be of benefit.Purpose: To discuss methods for the assessment of the scientific literature and, in particular, of systematic reviews for evaluating the effectiveness of oral implant rehabilitation procedures.Materials and Methods: Various study designs and methods to identify scientific evidence are described, discussed, and ranked. Issues on how to critically appraise randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews are presented.Results: Properly conducted RCTs and structured critical systematic reviews are the gold standard of clinical research for assessing whether a therapeutic intervention is effective. In the field of oral implantology, there is an urgent need to implement more RCTs and to summarize their results in systematic reviews.Conclusions: Searching of the truth requires training and critical skill. Dentists should be trained on how to integrate their clinical experience with evidence-based research and on how to discriminate between clinically useful scientific information and less useful research.
    Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 04/2007; 3(2):62 - 78. · 3.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to systematically review current literature on in vitro tests of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) beams, with regard to studies that followed criteria described in an International Standard. The reported reinforcing effects of various fibers on the flexural strength and elastic modulus of composite resin beams were analyzed. Original, peer reviewed papers, selected using Medline from 1950 to 2007, on in vitro testing of FRC beams in comparison to non-reinforced composite beams. Also information from conference abstracts (IADR) was included. With the keywords (fiber or fibre) and (resin or composite) and (fixed partial denture or FPD), the literature search revealed 1427 titles. Using this strategy a broad view of the clinical and non-clinical literature on fiber-reinforced FPDs was obtained. Restricting to three-point bending tests, 7 articles and 1 abstract (out of 126) were included. Finally, the data of 363 composite beams were analyzed. The differences in mean flexural strength and/or modulus between reinforced and unreinforced beams were set out in a forest plot. Meta-regression analyses were performed (single and multiple regression models). Under specific conditions we have been able to show that fibers do reinforce resin composite beams. The flexural modulus not always seems to increase with polyethylene-reinforcement, even when fibers are located at the tensile side. Besides, fiber architecture (woven vs. unidirectional) seems to be more important than the type of fiber for flexural strength and flexural modulus.
    Dental Materials 09/2008; 24(11):1435-43. · 4.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Various methods for statistical analysis of data are available to clinicians and researchers. Meta-analysis is a tool by which small, related studies are identified and, through systematic review, are combined into a common data pool for a single, larger population analysis. As with all statistical methods, there are indications and contraindications for the use of meta-analysis. Additionally, meta-analysis is dependent upon the quality of data applied, the bias of the test itself, and the interpretation of the results. This article will discuss these aspects of meta-analysis, including the history of its development and usage in the scientific community, basic terminology, and a relevant literature review.
    Special Care in Dentistry 07/2008; 28(4):125-30.