Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

Ref ID 81
First Author P. S. Fleming
Journal THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS
Year Of Publishing 2013
URL https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/35/2/244/490824?login=true
Keywords • Dentistry
• Low methodological quality
• Non-Cochrane reviews
• Cochrane
Problem(s) • Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United Kingdom
Checklists • AMSTAR 1
Aim To assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 2002 and 2011.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings The overall AMSTAR score for the 109 included Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in orthodontics was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria. A similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ( P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis ( β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.
Number of systematic reviews included 109
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 109
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description