Meta-analyses have been suggested to be the highest form of evidence available to clinicians to guide clinical practice in dental care. High methodologic quality is a prerequisite for valid interpretation and application of review findings. However, meta-analyses are complex exercises, and assessing quality can be a daunting task. Clinicians and policymakers require guidance, which is not provided adequately by the available literature on the quality of meta-analyses. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of meta-analyses that address topics pertinent to endodontics.
To identify potentially eligible meta-analyses for inclusion, systematic searches performed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were enriched by hand searches, citation mining, and expert recommendation. Comprehensive search strategies were constructed for electronic searches. Predetermined inclusion criteria were applied to each identified meta-analysis independently by two reviewers. To assess report quality, the included meta-analyses were assessed by using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).
A total of 16 reports of meta-analyses were included (kappa = 0.96). The overall quality of reports of meta-analyses was found to be high, with an estimated mean overall AMSTAR score of 8.33 out of 11 (95% confidence interval, 7.62-8.88). The weakest areas within the included meta-analyses were failure to report the likelihood of publication bias.
The overall quality of the reports of meta-analyses available in endodontics is high according to AMSTAR.
"The items considered as indicative for review quality are shown in Table 1. Quality rating according to AMSTAR scores has differed in the literature: while some authors regard a score between 8 and 11 as of high, and a score between 4 and 7 of medium review quality , others considered an AMSTAR score of 9 -11 as indicative for high and a score of 5 -8 as of moderate quality . However, there appears to be consensus that an AMSTAR score of < 4 signifies low review quality. "
[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.
"In addition, a higher preponderance of meta-analysis among Cochrane reviews was also noted. The mean AMSTAR score noted in reviews incorporating meta-analysis (7.93 ± 2.61) was analogous to that obtained in a review of methodological quality of Endodontic meta-analyses, the latter alluding to mean AMSTAR score of 8.33 ( Suebnukarn et al. , 2010 ). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: 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.
The European Journal of Orthodontics 04/2012; 35(2). DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjs016 · 1.48 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The paper examines what economists have said about the problematic
assumptions of the productivity concept and their critiques of the
difficulties involved in using it to make performance evaluations. We
endeavor to show the complexity of using the productivity concept to
evaluate the performance impact of investing in information technology.
This critique is directed toward economists and managers who do not
really understand the empirical limitations of the productivity concept.
It may also be useful to economists and managers who, although aware of
these limitations, hope that through careful analysis, the empirical
difficulties can be overcome
Technology and Society, 1997. 'Technology and Society at a Time of Sweeping Change'. Proceedings., 1997 International Symposium on; 07/1997
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.