A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSaltaji, H.
dc.contributor.authorCummings, G.G.
dc.contributor.authorArmijo-Olivo, S.
dc.contributor.authorMajor, M.P.
dc.contributor.authorAmin, M.
dc.contributor.authorMajor, P.W.
dc.contributor.authorHartling, L.
dc.contributor.authorFlores-Mir, C.
dc.contributor.editorGlanzel, W.
dc.date.issued2013
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: 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.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityHumam Saltaji, Greta G. Cummings, Susan Armijo-Olivo, Michael P. Major, Maryam Amin, Paul W. Major, Lisa Hartling, Carlos Flores-Mir
dc.identifier.citationPLoS ONE, 2013; 8(9):e74545-1-e74545-12
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0074545
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.orcidCummings, G.G. [0000-0002-0668-6176]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/120792
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)
dc.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.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074545
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectCross-Sectional Studies
dc.subjectBiomedical Research
dc.subjectBibliometrics
dc.subjectOral Health
dc.subjectReview Literature as Topic
dc.titleA descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
hdl_120792.pdf
Size:
952.23 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published Version
Download

Collections

Nursing publications