ArticlePloS one2013
A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Saudi Arabia's contribution to systematic reviews in dentistry: A bibliometric analysis.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a search strategy and an automated classifier for retrieving temporomandibular disorders studies.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2024Article
- Prediction intervals reporting in orthodontic meta-analyses.European journal of orthodontics · 2021Article
- Assessing the roles and challenges of librarians in dental systematic and scoping reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Identifying and critically examining government legislation relevant to children's dental caries in Calgary, Alberta, Canada: a health inequities lens.Journal of public health dentistry · 2019Article
- Influence of blinding on treatment effect size estimate in randomized controlled trials of oral health interventions.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Article
- Global burden of dental condition among children in nine countries participating in an international oral health promotion programme, 2012-2013.International dental journal · 2014Article
- Article
- Systematic Reviews in Dental Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Contribution from Indian Dentists During 1948-2022.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify all systematic reviews (SRs) published in the domain of oral health research and describe them in terms of their epidemiological and descriptive characteristics.
designCross sectional, descriptive study.
methodsAn 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.
results1,188 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.
conclusionEpidemiological 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.