Systematic Review Part 1. Introduction to Systematic Review

Asian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 155-161

  Macdonald Jankowski, David ^a   Dozier, Marshall ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Complexity science; Ethnicity; Evidence based Medicine; Oral and maxillofacial surgery; Randomised controlled trials; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; REVIEW;

EID: 0142156047     PISSN: 09156992     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0915-6992(03)80036-5     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingstone; 2000:133-136.
2. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes B. Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. In: Mulrow C, Cook D (editors). Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1998:5-12.
3. Pichler JW, Beirne OR. Lingual flap retraction and prevention of lingual nerve damage associated with third molar surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Oral Med Oral Surg Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91:395-401.
4. Blanas N, Freund B, Schwartz M, Furst IM. Systematic review of the treatment and prognosis of the odontogenic keratocyst. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;90: 553-558.
5. Dijkstra PU, Kropmans TJB, Stegenga B. The association between generalized joint hypermobility and temporomandibular joint disorders. J Dent Res 2002;81:158-163.
6. McComb JL, Wright JL, O'Brien KD. Clinical guidelines for dentistry: will they be useful? Br Dent J 1997;183:22-26.
7. Binnie WH, Drangsholt M. Further study required to establish clinical guidelines for follow-up of patients with oral lichen planus. J Evid Base Dent Pract 2001;1:204-206. Comment on: Oral Oncol 2001;37:262-267.
8. Binnie WH, Drangsholt M. Further study required to establish clinical guidelines for follow-up of patients with oral lichen planus. J Evid Base Dent Pract 2001;1:204-206. Comment on: Oral Oncol 2001;37:262-267.
9. National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC). www.guideline.gov
10. Buonocore PM. Dentistry: based on evidence, not fiction. J Evid Base Dent Pract 2001:1:157-158.
11. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998; 316:61-66.
12. Koo LC. Concepts of disease causation, treatment and prevention among Hong Kong Chinese: diversity and eclecticism. Soc Sci Med 1987;25:405-417
13. Greenhalgh T, Hughes J, Humphery C, Rogers S, Swinglehurst D, Martin P. A comparative case study of two models of a clinical informaticist service. BMJ 2002;324:524-529.
14. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ 2000;320:537-540.
15. Rohlin M, Mileman PA. Decision analysis in dentistry - the last 30 years. J Dent 2000;28: 453-468.
16. Chiappelli F, Prolo P. The meta-contruct of evidence-based dentistry. Part 1. J Evid Base Dent Pract 2001;1:159-165.
17. Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ 2001;323:625-628.
18. Wilson T, Holt T. Complexity and clinical care. BMJ 2001;323:685-688.
19. Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, May CR, Williams TL, Hellmich S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ 2002;324:1434-1437. Comment in: BMJ 2002;325:598.
20. Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, May CR, Williams TL, Hellmich S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ 2002;324:1434-1437. Comment in: BMJ 2002;325:598.
21. Altman DG. Commentary: systematic reviewers face challenges from varied study designs. BMJ 2002;325:468-469. Comment on: BMJ 2002;325: 461-468.
22. Altman DG. Commentary: systematic reviewers face challenges from varied study designs. BMJ 2002;325:468-469. Comment on: BMJ 2002;325: 461-468.
23. Gøtzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable. Lancet 2000;355:129-134.
24. Bailar III JC. The practice of meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:149-157.
25. de Konig HJ. Assessment of nationwide cancer-screening programmes: commentary. Lancet 2000;355:80-81.
26. Charatan F. The great American mammography debate. Br Med J 2002;324:432.
27. MacDonald-Jankowski D. Fibrous dysplasia in the jaws of a Hong Kong population: radiological presentation and systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:195-202.
28. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 2000;356:1228-1231.
29. Lui WF, Karlberg J. Hong Kong clinical trials published in Medline between 1987 and 1996. Hong Kong Med J 1998;4:261-267.
30. Mould RF, Tai THP. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: treatments and outcomes in the 20th century. Br J Radiol 2002;75:307-339.
31. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. Br Med J 2002;324: 1448-1451.
32. Wei WI. Commentary: head and neck carcinomas in the developing world. BMJ 2002;325:827. Comment on: BMJ 2002;325:822-827.
33. Wei WI. Commentary: head and neck carcinomas in the developing world. BMJ 2002;325:827. Comment on: BMJ 2002;325:822-827.
34. Barton S. Using clinical evidence. Having the evidence in your hand is just a start - but a good one. Br Med J 2001;322:503-504.
35. Erill S. Is it clinically significant? Lancet 2002; 359:1708.
36. Bachetti P. Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem. BMJ 2002;324: 1271-1273. Comment in: BMJ 2002;325:491.
37. Bachetti P. Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem. BMJ 2002;324: 1271-1273. Comment in: BMJ 2002;325:491.