A practitioner's guide to developing critical appraisal skills: Reviews of research

Journal of the American Dental Association

Volumn 144, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 527-530

  Needleman, Ian ^a   Clarkson, Jan ^b,c   Worthington, Helen ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Critical appraisal; Meta analysis; Review literature as topic; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878452865     PISSN: 00028177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0155     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. 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(9):e1000326.
2. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994;308(6924):283- 284.
3. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;2(8):e124.
4. Needleman I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moles DR, Worthington H. Improving the clarity and transparency of reporting health research: a shared obligation and responsibility. J Dent Res 2008;87(10):894-895.
5. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309(6954):597-599.
6. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ 2001;322(7278):98-101.
7. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987;106(3):485-488.
8. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
9. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (published online ahead of print Feb. 20, 2009). J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(10):1013-1020. doi:10.1016/j. jclinepi.2008.10.009.
10. Glenny AM, Esposito M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci 2003;111(2):85-92.
11. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323(7303):42-46.
12. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J 2010;4:84-91.
13. Elangovan S, Avila-Ortiz G, Johnson GK, Karimbux N, Allareddy V. Quality assessment of systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans (published online ahead of print April 17, 2012). J Periodontal 2013;84(2):176-185. doi:10.1902/jop. 2012.120021.
14. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Extent and quality of systematic review evidence related to minimum intervention in dentistry: essential oils, powered toothbrushes, triclosan, xylitol. Int Dent J 2011;61(4):179-192.
15. Higgins J P T, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
16. Needleman IG. A guide to systematic reviews. J Clin Periodontal 2002;29(suppl 3):6-9.
17. Needleman I, Moles DR, Worthington H. Evidence-based periodontology, systematic reviews and research quality. Periodontal 2000 2005;37(1):12-28.