- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
- 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://watermark.silverchair.com/cjs016.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAq4wggKqBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKbMIIClwIBADCCApAGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMAD0ok8QqOf0GaumdAgEQgIICYdz18-zKTAwMgOkARNsBEo0ckaGJY38sDht7LKKL8T7QaqecgoTN8IYsGwOwk2EO5LS-jf8syFxniq2k4S2mq26iaq5nQ0UumbGR7SxHz3PEGuMjmoKCDl_hXKpPMY85XG0MItrSPpGUgyBQVFB3UmCTeLasEZsh03omgHUTTNdQsofWH637dtZglH5h5nYICIXwz6hFwUWKQHdPPgU4GyYVKBZSc8LRxiIkNbdsKDx9XZPIuRCrNKTnSrHbQ5T6lrFyl7ajv6IkOLgvtyGe9h8qCdXj771BSYBd1-cv8V6BEG6V0ZGzOLo4skBYRJe2D4Ks_3URLH8Qoj6Jk8wHE5MYJWjLu0Hj1Ha7DopJroNl8s2t1iApL5tDgYFOMnrkb57Pk_qmeIcEO5LriaCqQ7s_xidtoNZZMF4YRfFPOwmvzQz0o9Ufrw-kwqepsc3GJehiJ-IiElfOFFQuTeYByhz9LRWsvjKbHnonzBDB7vJuBVrwdOyzYSNmpt3e7BE-jCcX4Hs681BgNg6gyq9S4OaOWjlL1lpvYnHPF-Ad1owc3aAs0eDn-PHvcWIYoQ1o4YaHyHSApcBvt4IAO28lCLx1p7KlOgebYmda4BRsHQhcB3kMo51vMgyI6-BGPV-1CITU0tp972uxHkcT_oync2nQ_-JdCcPdgTr2w6wDUvpfZ824J1mmIWoaaY2oX6Lw72ns_gpvFY-MzHAQtqYoGNcuJqhsqN3VGyCRAjBko2GisNQLiVZ3NVP8J_r5ReojgbM1s5rCB08mIwjRhx8VlWJ9xhvYOVqLKajHmhUCwGsFYA |
Keywords |
Cochrane Dentistry Non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological quality |
Problem(s) |
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
Number of systematic reviews included | 109 |
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. |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |