Keywords
Meta-analysis. Randomized-controlled trials. Clinical trials. Dentistry. Evidence-based practice
How to Cite
Abstract
Systematic reviews have been established as an influential branch of clinical epidemiology and health services research, with hundreds of systematic reviews of controlled trials published in the health care literature each year. The most obvious manifestation of this trend is the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that aims to prepare and disseminate rigorous systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. The potential of systematic reviews to inform decisions about practice and policy in general and oral health care and to bring more developments in the realm of clinical trial research remains substantial. The information from high quality systematic reviews of controlled trials that now exists should inform health care decisions and further research in dentistryReferences
Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994; 309: 597-9.
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions [see comments]. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126: 376-80.
Chalmers I, Haynes B. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care [see comments]. BMJ. 1994; 309: 862-5.
Chalmers I. Using systematic reviews and registers of ongoing trials for scientific and ethical trial design. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001. pp.429-43.
Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-Analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ. 1997; 315: 1371-4.
Lau J, Schmid CH, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48: 45-57.
Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction [see comments]. JAMA. 1992; 268: 240-8.
Peto R, Collins R, Gray R. Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials [see comments]. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48: 23-40.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test [see comments]. BMJ. 1997; 315: 629-34.
Thompson SG. Why and how sources of heterogeneity should be investigated. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001. pp.157-75.
Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman DG. Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002; 7: 51-61.
Clarke MJ, Stewart LA. Obtaining individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books, 2001; pp.109-21.
Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards [see comments]. JAMA. 1992; 267: 374-8.
Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998; 279: 281-6.
Tramer MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 1997;315:635-640.
Gotzsche PC. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987; 295: 654-6.
Egger M, Dickersin K, Davey Smith G. Problems and limitations in conducting systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001. pp.43-68.
Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H. Jr. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med. 1982; 72: 233-40.
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995; 273: 408-12.
Sterne JAC, Egger M, Davey Smith G. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001. pp.189-209.
Chalmers I, Altman DG. How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. Lancet. 1999; 353: 490-3.
Mulrow CD, Cook DJ, Davidoff F. Systematic reviews: critical links in the great chain of evidence [editorial; comment]. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126: 389-91.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD guidelines for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. 1996; 4: (Abstract)
Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group [see comments]. JAMA. 1994; 272: 1367-71.
Cooper H, Hedges LV. Research synthesis as a scientific enterprise. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, eds. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russel Sage Foundation; 1994. pp.3-14.
Glass GV. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976; 10: 3-8.
Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002; 25: 12-37.
Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106: 485-8.
Stamm JW, Bohannan HM, Graves RC, Disney JA. The efficiency of caries prevention with weekly fluoride mouthrinses. J Dent Educ. 1984; 48: 617-26.
Clark DC, Hanley JA, Stamm JW, Weinstein PL. An empirically based system to estimate the effectiveness of caries-preventive agents. A comparison of the effectiveness estimates of APF gels and solutions, and fluoride varnishes. Caries Res. 1985; 19: 83- 95.
Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 1994.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D. for the QUORUM group. Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUARUM statement. Lancet. 1999; 354: 1896-900.
Cochrane Methodology Register. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software; 2002.
Clarke M, Langhorne P. Revisiting the Cochrane Collaboration. Meeting the challenge of Archie Cochrane - and facing up to some new ones [editorial]. BMJ. 2001; 323: 821.
Egger M, Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G. Where now for metaanalysis? Int J Epidemiol. 2002; 31: 1-5.
Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: miths and misconceptions. BMJ. 2001; 322: 98-101.
Lefebvre C, Clarke MJ. Identifying randomized trials. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001. pp.69-86.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement [see comments]. JAMA. 1996; 276: 637-9.
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001; 357: 1191-4.
McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ. 2000; 321: 855-9.
Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002; CD002279.
Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride gels for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002; CD002280.
Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003; CD002278.
Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003.
Chalmers I, Sackett D, Silagy C. The Cochrane Collaboration. In: Maynard A, Chalmers I, eds. Non-random reflections on health services research: on the 25th anniversary of Archie Cochrane’s Effectiveness and Efficiency. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1997. pp.231-49.
Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency. Random reflections in health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.
Clarke M. The Cochrane Collaboration. Eval Health Prof. 2002; 25: 8-11.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software; 2002.
Bickley S. Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register. The Cochrane Collaboration Oral health Group Newsletter. 2002 Summer.
Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2799-801.
Montenegro R, Needleman I, Moles D, Tonetti M. Quality of RCTs in periodontology. J Dent Res. 2002; 81: 866-70.
Sjogren P, Halling A. Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in dental and medical research. Br Dent J. 2002; 192: 100-3.
Tulloch JF, Antczak-Bouckoms AA, Tuncay OC. A review of clinical research in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 95: 499-504.
Antczak-Bouckoms A. Meta-analysis of clinical trials in periodontal research. Periodontol 2000. 1993; 2: 140-9.
Antczak-Bouckoms AA. Epidemiology of research for temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain. 1995; 9: 226-34.
Glenny AM, Esposito M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003; 111: 85-92.
Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A 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.
Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ. 2001; 323: 829-32.
Clarke M, Higgins J, Marinho V. Cochrane Software Needs Assessment Survey. Cochrane News 2002 Sep.
Clarke M, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents? JAMA. 1998; 280: 280-2.
The Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences uses the Creative Commons license (CC), thus preserving the integrity of the articles in an open access environment.
Downloads
