ArticleBritish dental journal2022
How to appraise the literature: basic principles for the busy clinician - part 2: systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Article in British dental journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- PRISMA 2020 updated guideline.British dental journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increasing numbers of primary research papers being published in dentistry and healthcare in general, it is almost impossible for busy clinicians to keep up with the literature. Reviews summarising the outcomes of trials can therefore be a considerably efficient tool for obtaining the relevant information about what works and what does not. To this end, systematic reviews are critical in summarising the best available evidence and providing an indication of its strength. However, as with clinical trials, they can be difficult to interpret, of varying quality and dependent on the studies they include. This is the second part of a two-part series and will discuss the principles of critically appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It follows on from part one, which focused on appraising randomised controlled trials.
Identifiers
35459833What 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.