Survey of systematic review authors in dentistry: Challenges in methodology and reporting

Journal of Dental Education

Volumn 73, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 471-482

  Major, Michael P ^a   Warren, Sharon ^a   Flores Mir, Carlos ^a,b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cross sectional survey; Evaluation methodology; Evidence based dentistry; Publication bias; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DENTAL RESEARCH; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED DENTISTRY; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD; TIME; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; DENTAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 64149092158     PISSN: 00220337     EISSN: 19307837     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Glenny AM, Esposito M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci 2003;111:85-92.
2. Bader J, Ismail A. Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:464-73.
3. Major MP, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. An evaluation of search and selection methods used in dental systematic reviews published in English. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1252-7.
4. Major MP, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental specialty. Evid Based Dent 2007;8:66-70.
5. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1271-8.
6. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37:360-3.
7. Sutherland SE, Matthews DC. Conducting systematic reviews and creating clinical practice guidelines in dentistry: lessons learned. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:747-53.
8. Helmer D, Savoie I, Green C, Kazanjian A. Evidence-based practice: extending the search to find material for the systematic review. Bull Med Libr Assoc 2001;89:346-52.
9. Higgins P, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.0.1 (updated September 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. At: www. cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed: September 2008.
10. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:1286-91.
11. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:476-87.
12. Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A. Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003;19: 168-78.
13. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Juni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet 1996;347: 363-6.
14. Turp JC, Schulte JM, Antes G. Nearly half of dental randomized controlled trials published in German are not included in Medline. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:405-11.
15. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-76.
16. Johnson T, Fendrich M. Modeling sources of self-report bias in a survey of drug use epidemiology. Ann Epidemiol 2005;15:381-9.
17. Adams AS, Soumerai SB, Lomas J, Ross-Degnan D. Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care 1999;11:187-92.
18. Curry L, Purkis IE. Validity of self-reports of behavior changes by participants after a CME course. J Med Educ 1986;61:579-84.