A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study
Files
(Published Version)
Date
2013
Authors
Saltaji, H.
Cummings, G.G.
Armijo-Olivo, S.
Major, M.P.
Amin, M.
Major, P.W.
Hartling, L.
Flores-Mir, C.
Editors
Glanzel, W.
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Journal article
Citation
PLoS ONE, 2013; 8(9):e74545-1-e74545-12
Statement of Responsibility
Humam Saltaji, Greta G. Cummings, Susan Armijo-Olivo, Michael P. Major, Maryam Amin, Paul W. Major, Lisa Hartling, Carlos Flores-Mir
Conference Name
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify all systematic reviews (SRs) published in the domain of oral health research and describe them in terms of their epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. DESIGN: Cross sectional, descriptive study. METHODS: An electronic search of seven databases was performed from inception through May 2012; bibliographies of relevant publications were also reviewed. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were oral health SRs defined as therapeutic or non-therapeutic investigations that studied a topic or an intervention related to dental, oral or craniofacial diseases/disorders. Data were extracted from all the SRs based on a number of epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. Data were analysed descriptively for all the SRs, within each of the nine dental specialities, and for Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs separately. RESULTS: 1,188 oral health (126 Cochrane and 1062 non-Cochrane) SRs published from 1991 through May 2012 were identified, encompassing the nine dental specialties. Over half (n = 676; 56.9%) of the SRs were published in specialty oral health journals, with almost all (n = 1,178; 99.2%) of the SRs published in English and almost none of the non-Cochrane SRs (n = 11; 0.9%) consisting of updates of previously published SRs. 75.3% of the SRs were categorized as therapeutic, with 64.5% examining non-drug interventions, while approximately half (n = 150/294; 51%) of the non-therapeutic SRs were classified as epidemiological SRs. The SRs included a median of 15 studies, with a meta-analysis conducted in 43.6%, in which a median of 9 studies/1 randomized trial were included in the largest meta-analysis conducted. Funding was received for 25.1% of the SRs, including nearly three-quarters (n = 96; 76.2%) of the Cochrane SRs. CONCLUSION: Epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of the 1,188 oral health SRs varied across the nine dental specialties and by SR category (Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane). There is a clear need for more updates of SRs in all the dental specialties.
School/Discipline
Dissertation Note
Provenance
Description
Access Status
Rights
© 2013 Saltaji et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.