Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 116-137

  Papageorgiou, S N ^a   Papadopoulos, M A ^a   Athanasiou, A E ^a  

^a ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

Author keywords

Assessment of multiple systematic reviews; Orthodontic; Quality; Reporting; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMAN; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; ORTHODONTICS; REVIEW; STANDARD;

BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMANS; ORTHODONTICS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 79960590570     PISSN: 16016335     EISSN: 16016343     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01522.x     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2 (updated September 2009). Available from:.
2. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 2005;293:2362-6.
3. Chavalarias D, Ioannidis JP. Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:1205-15.
4. Polychronopoulou A, Pandis N, Eliades T. Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2010;10:207-11.
5. Pitak-Arnnop P, Sader R, Rapidis AD, Dhanuthai K, Bauer U, Herve C et al. Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: an observation on published controlled trials. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:4-10.
6. Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 2005;366:107-8.
7. Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA 2002;287:2799-801.
8. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Rothstein HR. Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ 2008;336:1413-5.
9. Rinchuse DJ, Rinchuse DJ, Kandasamy S, Ackerman MB. Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses. World J Orthod 2008;9:167-76.
10. Tulloch JF, Antczak-Bouckoms AA, Tuncay OC. A review of clinical research in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:499-504.
11. Richards D. Outcomes, what outcomes? Evid Based Dent 2005;6:1.
12. Huwiler-Müntener K, Jüni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 2002;287:2801-4.
13. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-13.
14. Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, Cogo E, Moher D. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:748-54.
15. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
16. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:e1-34.
17. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
18. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE 2007;2:e1350.
19. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1013-20.
20. Flores-Mir C, Major MP, Major PW. Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:214-7.
21. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
22. Thomson Reuters. (2010). 2008 Journal Citation Reports® Science Edition. Available from.
23. SCImago. (2007). SJR-SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Available from.
24. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ 2010;340:c723.
25. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1-276.
26. Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2005;2:e138.
27. Gøtzsche PC, Kassirer JP, Woolley KL, Wager E, Jacobs A, Gertel A et al. What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature? PLoS Med 2009;6:e23.
28. Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Med J Aust 2006;184:621-6.
29. Kanavakis G, Spinos P, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Orthodontic journals with impact factors in perspective: trends in the types of articles and authorship characteristics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:516-22.
30. Eliades T, Athanasiou AE. Impact factor. A review with specific relevance to orthodontic journals. J Orofac Orthop 2001;62:74-83.
31. Braun T, Glänzel W, Schubert A. A hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics 2006;69:169-73.
32. Vanclay JK. On the robustness of the h-index. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2007;58:1547-50.
33. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009;302:1092-6.
34. Meho LI, Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2007;58:2105-25.
35. Nieminen P, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schumacher M. The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:42.
36. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. (2005). Proposed Evaluation Tools for COMPUS. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. November 29. Available from.
37. Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst 2006;4:20.
38. Delgado-Rodriguez M, Ruiz-Canela M, De Irala-Estevez J, Llorca J, Martinez-Gonzalez A. Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:569-72.
39. Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S. How statistical expertise is used in medical research. JAMA 2002;287:2817-20.
40. Perneger TV, Ricou B, Boulvain M, Bovier PA, Herrmann FR, Perrier A et al. Medical researchers evaluate their methodological skills. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:1323-9.
41. Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T, Taoufik K, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Knowledge of European orthodontic postgraduate students on biostatistics. Eur J Orthod 2010. doi:. [Epub ahead of print].
42. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4:e78.
43. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278-80.
44. Shea B, Boers M, Grimshaw JM, Hamel C, Bouter LM. Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews? BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:27.
45. Shea B, Bouter LM, Grimshaw JM, Francis D, Ortiz Z, Wells GA et al. Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. J Rheumatol 2006;33:9-15.
46. Major MP, Warren S, Flores-Mir C. Survey of systematic review authors in dentistry: challenges in methodology and reporting. J Dent Educ 2009;73:471-82.
47. Glenny AM, Esposito M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci 2003;111:85-92.
48. Major MP, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality. Evid Based Dent 2007;8:66-70.
49. Ijaz S, Croucher RE, Marinho VC. Systematic reviews of topical fluorides for dental caries: a review of reporting practice. Caries Res 2010;44:579-92.
50. Suebnukarn S, Ngamboonsirisingh S, Rattanabanlang A. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in endodontics. J Endod 2010;36:602-8.
51. Chambrone L, Faggion CM Jr, Pannuti CM, Chambrone LA. Evidence-based periodontal plastic surgery: an assessment of quality of systematic reviews in the treatment of recession-type defects. J Clin Periodontol 2010;37:1110-8.
52. Papadopoulos MA, Gkiaouris I. A critical evaluation of meta-analyses in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:589-99.
53. Bessa-Nogueira RV, Vasconcelos BC, Niederman R. The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing temporomandibular joint disorder surgical and non-surgical treatment. BMC Oral Health 2008;8:27.
54. List T, Axelsson S. Management of TMD: evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:430-51.
55. Shimada T, Takayama H, Nakamura Y. Quantity and quality assessment of randomized controlled trials on orthodontic practice in PubMed. Angle Orthod 2010;80:525-30.
56. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. An assessment of quality characteristics of randomised control trials published in dental journals. J Dent 2010;38:713-21.
57. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M et al. A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:1095-104.
58. Sampson M, Shojania KG, Garritty C, Horsley T, Ocampo M, Moher D. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:531-6.
59. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326.
60. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185:263-7.
61. Al Faleh K, Al-Omran M. Reporting and methodologic quality of Cochrane Neonatal review group systematic reviews. BMC Pediatr 2009;9:38.
62. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, the Consort Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:657-62.
63. PLoS Medicine Editors. Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others. PLoS Med 2007;4:e147.