The effectiveness of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for permanent molars and premolars A critical assessment of existing systematic reviews and report of a new systematic review

Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Available for download at: http://mahara.qmul.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=16447Background: Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) is the removal of caries using hand instruments and restoration of the resulting cavity using an adhesive restorative material. It was designed to restore teeth in communities without access to conventional dental clinics in poorer countries but has come to be used by dentists in the developed world too, as an alternative to conventional restorative treatment. Objectives: 1) to assess the scope and the methodological and reporting quality of existing systematic reviews of the effectiveness of ART compared to conventional restorative treatment; 2) to evaluate the effectiveness of ART compared to conventional treatment in permanent teeth with class I and II cavities. Methods: Searches: 1) for the assessment of existing systematic reviews: Electronic searches were conducted of OVID Medline, OVID Embase, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases (DARE, NHSEED and HTA), Google Scholar, and the CNKI and CAOD Chinese databases; 2) for the systematic reviews of ART in permanent teeth: the above searches were supplemented by searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), LILAC, BBO, IMEAR (WHO Index Medicus for South East Region), WPRIM (WHO Western Pacific Region Index Medicus) and IndMed, Current Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials, OpenSIGLE, IADR conference abstracts and NLM Gateway. Hand searches were conducted of six dental journals known to have reported ART studies. References from retrieved systematic reviews, trials and other related papers were searched for additional reports. Authors were contacted. There were no language restrictions. Selection criteria: 1) for the assessment of existing systematic reviews: systematic reviews that compared ART to conventional treatment for the restoration of dental cavities; 2) for the systematic reviews of ART in permanent teeth: randomised controlled trials that compared ART using any adhesive material to conventional treatment using amalgam or any adhesive material Data collection: 1) for the assessment of existing systematic reviews: Reviews were selected and data was extracted by a single reviewer using a custom made data extraction sheet. Scope was assessed in terms of materials used, teeth and cavity type. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR. Reporting quality was assessed using the PRISMA guidelines; 2) for the systematic reviews of ART in permanent teeth: reports of trials were screened and selected independently by two reviewers and data would have been extracted on a custom made data extraction sheet had there been eligible trials. Results: 1) for the assessment of existing systematic reviews: three systematic reviews were identified. Two of these were restricted to comparing ART with glass-ionomer to conventional treatment with amalgam; two allowed for inclusion of all cavity types in both deciduous and permanent teeth. None was of high methodological quality and reporting quality was good in one of the reviews only; 2) for the systematic reviews of ART in permanent teeth: no eligible trials were identified. Author’s conclusions: 1) existing systematic reviews do not have sufficient scope to allow for the inclusion of potentially eligible trials that would assess ARTs effectiveness and they have been of high to medium risk of bias; 2) it is disappointing that there are no properly conducted randomised controlled trials comparing ART to conventional treatment in class I and II cavities in the permanent dentition

A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension

BACKGROUND: Bibliographic databases are the primary resource for identifying systematic reviews of health care interventions. Reliable retrieval of systematic reviews depends on the scope of indexing used by database providers. Therefore, searching one database may be insufficient, but it is unclear how many need to be searched. We sought to evaluate the performance of seven major bibliographic databases for the identification of systematic reviews for hypertension. METHODS: We searched seven databases (Cochrane library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Epistemonikos, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed Health and Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP)) from 2003 to 2015 for systematic reviews of any intervention for hypertension. Citations retrieved were screened for relevance, coded and checked for screening consistency using a fuzzy text matching query. The performance of each database was assessed by calculating its sensitivity, precision, the number of missed reviews and the number of unique records retrieved. RESULTS: Four hundred systematic reviews were identified for inclusion from 11,381 citations retrieved from seven databases. No single database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews for hypertension. EMBASE identified the most reviews (sensitivity 69 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with 7.2 % precision (Pr). The sensitivity of the Cochrane library was 60 %, DARE 57 %, MEDLINE 57 %, PubMed Health 53 %, Epistemonikos 49 % and TRIP 33 %. EMBASE contained the highest number of unique records (n = 43). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records and had the highest precision (Pr = 30 %), followed by Epistemonikos (n = 2, Pr = 19 %). No unique records were found in PubMed Health (Pr = 24 %) DARE (Pr = 21 %), TRIP (Pr = 10 %) or MEDLINE (Pr = 10 %). Searching EMBASE and the Cochrane library identified 88 % of all systematic reviews in the reference set, and searching the freely available databases (Cochrane, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE) identified 83 % of all the reviews. The databases were re-analysed after systematic reviews of non-conventional interventions (e.g. yoga, acupuncture) were removed. Similarly, no database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews. EMBASE identified the most relevant systematic reviews (sensitivity 73 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with Pr = 5 %. The sensitivity of the Cochrane database was 62 %, followed by MEDLINE (60 %), DARE (55 %), PubMed Health (54 %), Epistemonikos (50 %) and TRIP (31 %). The precision of the Cochrane library was the highest (20 %), followed by PubMed Health (Pr = 16 %), DARE (Pr = 13 %), Epistemonikos (Pr = 12 %), MEDLINE (Pr = 6 %), TRIP (Pr = 6 %) and EMBASE (Pr = 5 %). EMBASE contained the most unique records (n = 34). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records. The other databases held no unique records. CONCLUSIONS: The coverage of bibliographic databases varies considerably due to differences in their scope and content. Researchers wishing to identify systematic reviews should not rely on one database but search multiple databases

Shades of Grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies

This paper suggests how the ‘grey literature’, the diverse and heterogeneous body of material that is made public outside, and not subject to, traditional academic peer-review processes, can be used to increase the relevance and impact of management and organization studies (MOS). The authors clarify the possibilities by reviewing 140 systematic reviews published in academic and practitioner outlets to answer the following three questions: (i) Why is grey literature excluded from/included in systematic reviews in MOS? (ii) What types of grey material have been included in systematic reviews since guidelines for practice were first established in this discipline? (iii) How is the grey literature treated currently to advance management and organization scholarship and knowledge? This investigation updates previous guidelines for more inclusive systematic reviews that respond to criticisms of current review practices and the needs of evidence-based management

Mapping the crime reduction evidence base: a descriptive analysis of the WP1 Systematic Review Database.

This document gives some summary statistics for the sample of systematic reviews that met the WP1 inclusion criteria. These criteria are documented in the systematic review protocol for this work package. In summary, the final list of studies constituted 337 separate systematic reviews

Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research:A meta-epidemiological study

Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to minimise their occurrence and mitigate their impacts on HSDR systematic reviews, are needed

A protocol for a systematic review of clinical guidelines and published systematic reviews on the early detection of oral cancer

Background: The predicted increase in incidence of oral cavity cancer (OCC) coupled with high mortality and poor prognosis – particularly when diagnosed at a late/advanced stage – highlights the need for prevention and early detection/screening to reverse these trends. Dental healthcare professionals in primary care settings have a pivotal role in this effort. Aim: The aim of this protocol is to detail the process for assessing the evidence for the best practice and methods of early detection/screening for OCC in primary care dental settings by undertaking a systematic review of global clinical guidelines and published systematic reviews. Method: Searches for clinical guidelines and systematic reviews will be conducted in the following databases: Cochrane library, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Ovid), Excerpta Medical dataBASE, PubMed, Turning Research into Practice, SCOPUS and Web of Science Core Collection. Our search will extend to include Google Scholar and international professional organizations/associations websites. In addition, we will handsearch the bibliographies and undertake citation searches of the selected papers. Quality appraisal will be undertaken using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version II instrument for the clinical guidelines and both A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tools for the systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis approach will be used to assess the evidence of extracted data, primarily taking account of quality appraisal and recency of publication. Discussion: The synthesis of evidence will determine best practice for OCC early detection/screening by primary care dental healthcare professionals and will evaluate the relationship between clinical guidelines and the evidence base available from systematic reviews in this area

A focus on cross-purpose tools, automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines, and evaluation of automation tools: a summary of significant discussions at the fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR)

The fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 5–6 November 2019 in The Hague, the Netherlands. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose goal is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. The group seeks to facilitate the development and acceptance of automated techniques for systematic reviews. In 2018, the major themes discussed were the transferability of automation tools (i.e., tools developed for other purposes that might be used by systematic reviewers), the automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines and applications, and approaches for the evaluation of automation tools

Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%). CONCLUSIONS: Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed

A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine

Background In maternal medicine, research evidence is scattered making it difficult to access information for clinical decision making. Systematic reviews of good methodological quality are essential to provide valid inferences and to produce usable evidence summaries to guide management. This review assesses the methodological features of existing systematic reviews in maternal medicine, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews in maternal medicine. Methods Medline, Embase, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched for relevant reviews published between 2001 and 2006. We selected those reviews in which a minimum of two databases were searched and the primary outcome was related to the maternal condition. The selected reviews were assessed for information on framing of question, literature search and methods of review. Results Out of 2846 citations, 68 reviews were selected. Among these, 39 (57%) were Cochrane reviews. Most of the reviews (50/68, 74%) evaluated therapeutic interventions. Overall, 54/68 (79%) addressed a focussed question. Although 64/68 (94%) reviews had a detailed search description, only 17/68 (25%) searched without language restriction. 32/68 (47%) attempted to include unpublished data and 11/68 (16%) assessed for the risk of missing studies quantitatively. The reviews had deficiencies in the assessment of validity of studies and exploration for heterogeneity. When compared to Cochrane reviews, other reviews were significantly inferior in specifying questions (OR 20.3, 95% CI 1.1–381.3, p = 0.04), framing focussed questions (OR 30.9, 95% CI 3.7- 256.2, p = 0.001), use of unpublished data (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.9–16.4, p = 0.002), assessment for heterogeneity (OR 38.1, 95%CI 2.1, 688.2, p = 0.01) and use of meta-analyses (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.3–10.8, p = 0.02). Conclusion This study identifies areas which have a strong influence on maternal morbidity and mortality but lack good quality systematic reviews. Overall quality of the existing systematic reviews was variable. Cochrane reviews were of better quality as compared to other reviews. There is a need for good quality systematic reviews to inform practice in maternal medicine