A practical approach to evidence-based dentistry: VI: How to use a systematic review

Structured critical analysis correction of a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

: Systematic reviews (SRs) are an increasingly important format in the scientific literature. Commentaries on improvements to the SR format have focused on methodological quality, but a greater concern is a frequent lack of critical analysis. A structured critical analysis (SCA) was described as a solution to this deficiency.

METHODS

: Recommendations and conclusions of a recent SR were analyzed with a SCA to address common problems previously reported with the SR format.

RESULTS

: Errors in the component studies and their interpretation by the SR that led to erroneous recommendations were presented. The 5-part SCA provided comprehensive analysis that corrected the SR, which had accepted the component study conclusions verbatim.

CONCLUSION

: The SCA is a logical approach to provide critical thinking in SRs to ensure appropriate conclusions. This is especially important, as many SRs report contradictory evidence. Also, the reader can use the SCA format to better understand existing literature.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics

AIM

The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item - 'Yes' - when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes' - when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No' - when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ("Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?"), Item 8 ("Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?"), Item 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?") and Item 16 ("Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?") , whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ("Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?"). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorised as "Critically low", one review was "Low", two reviews were "Moderate" and one review was "High".

CONCLUSION

The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for Editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.

Knowledge synthesis: How to improve the use of evidence from clinical trials?

BACKGROUND

The value of systematic reviews (SRs) is determined by methodology and reporting quality of primary studies and how the SR is conducted and reported.

AIM

This study discusses key aspects of clinical trials (CTs) that might affect the value of SRs.

DESIGN

Narrative review.

RESULTS

We highlighted the following CT factors that could affect SR value: Defining the purpose of CTs is important because it could directly impact whether an SR question is appropriately answered and formulated; choose the most appropriate intervention to answer a proposed SR question is critical because we can exclude or include different studies, directly influencing selection bias; when conducting SRs, the study's search must be restricted to equal or highly similar comparison groups, allowing suitable comparisons of the outcomes' estimates; in SRs, it may be interesting to explore the effect of the most common definition of the disease used in clinical practice, being useful in evidence-based dentistry and easily translated to daily practitioners; and deficiencies in CT reporting can lead to unusable reports, biased results, and conclusions.

CONCLUSION

All aspects discussed were found to be important for improving the use of evidence from CTs.

Malocclusion in individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) are more affected by malocclusion than individuals without OI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Searches in PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs and gray literature were performed. Data extraction was conducted by two researchers. Risk of bias assessment employing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and meta-analysis were conducted. Results were provided with mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Strength of evidence was determined.

RESULTS

Six cross-sectional studies were included. In comparison with individuals without OI, the group with OI had 19.69-fold greater chance of exhibiting Angle Class III malocclusion (OR = 19.69, CI: 9.00-43.09) and presenting anterior crossbite greater (MD = 6.08, CI: 2.40-9.77). Individuals without OI had a significantly greater ANB angle (MD = 3.88, CI: 1.15-6.61) and SNA angle (MD = 2.11, CI: 0.24-3.98) in comparison with those with OI. No difference between groups was found for SNB (MD = -0.50, CI: -2.21 to 1.21) and open bite (MD = 0.98, CI: -0.29 to 2.25). Most studies included had moderate methodological quality. Strength of evidence was low or very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of Angle Class III malocclusion and anterior crossbite was greater among individuals with OI compared to those without OI. These findings can assist stakeholders about the occlusal abnormalities affecting OI individuals.

Systematic review versus structured critical analysis

Objective: This analysis discusses common problems with systematic reviews (SRs) and presents a novel solution, the structured critical analysis (SCA) that can be incorporated into a SR or used as an alternative literature review design.Methods: A cross-sectional survey of current SRs related to interdisciplinary restorative dentistry was obtained by evaluating 100 current SRs for their self-reported methodological quality and its effect on scientific validity.Results: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocol (PRISMA) was used in 99/100 SRs, but only 8/100 reported a low risk of bias. High statistical heterogeneity precluding meta-analysis was found in 44/100 SRs. Only 94 paragraphs/100 SRs provided critical analysis.Discussion: Significant problems were found with current SRs that can compromise their reliability as the premier level of evidence for clinical science research. The reader must be aware of these deficiencies to correctly interpret the SR and cannot rely on the format alone.

From dental science to clinical practice: Knowledge translation and evidence-based dentistry principles

It has been claimed that in order to decrease the gap between what we know and what we do, research findings must be translated from knowledge to action. Such practices better enable dentists to make evidence-based decisions instead of personal ideas and judgments. To this end, this literature review aims to revisit the concepts of knowledge translation and evidence-based dentistry (EBD) and depict their role and influence within dental education. It addresses some possible strategies to facilitate knowledge translation (KT), encourage dental students to use EBD principles, and to encourage dental educators to create an environment in which students become self-directed learners. It concludes with a call to develop up-to-date and efficient online platforms that could grant dentists better access to EBD sources in order to more efficiently translate research evidence into the clinic.