An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS)

Systematic reviews are not an assembly of anecdotes but a distillation of current best available evidence on a particular topic and as such have an important role to play in evidence-based healthcare. A substantial proportion of these systematic reviews focus on interventions, and are able to provide clinicians with the opportunity to understand and translate the best available evidence on the effects of these healthcare interventions into clinical practice. The importance of systematic reviews in summarising and identifying the gaps in evidence which might inform new research initiatives is also widely acknowledged. Their potential impact on practice and research makes their methodological quality especially important as it may directly influence their utility for clinicians, patients and policy makers. The objectives of this study were to identify systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS) and to evaluate their methodological quality using the evaluation tool, AMSTAR.

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Abstract Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews (n  =  109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken. Results: The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant. Conclusion: Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Can decision making in general surgery be based on evidence? An empirical study of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND: This empirical study analyzes the current status of Cochrane Reviews (CRs) and their strength of recommendation for evidence-based decision making in the field of general surgery. METHODS: Systematic literature search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration's homepage to identify available CRs on surgical topics. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics, utilization, and formulated treatment recommendations were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Association of review characteristics with treatment recommendation was analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Ninety-three CRs, including 1,403 primary studies and 246,473 patients, were identified. Mean number of included primary studies per CR was 15.1 (standard deviation [SD] 14.5) including 2,650 (SD 3,340) study patients. Two and a half (SD 8.3) nonrandomized trials were included per analyzed CR. Seventy-two (77%) CRs were published or updated in 2005 or later. Explicit treatment recommendations were given in 45 (48%). Presence of a treatment recommendation was associated with the number of included primary studies and the proportion of randomized studies. Utilization of surgical CRs remained low and showed large inter-country differences. The most surgical CRs were accessed in UK, USA, and Australia, followed by several Western and Eastern European countries. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of available CRs address surgical questions and their current usage is low. Instead of unsystematically increasing the number of surgical CRs it would be far more efficient to focus the review process on relevant surgical questions. Prioritization of CRs needs valid methods which should be developed by the scientific surgical community.