ReviewJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
How to Conduct and Publish Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Dentistry.
Review in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of Phosphoric Acid Etching Duration on the Bonding Performance of Universal Adhesives on Enamel: A Systematic Review of Laboratory Studies.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Pooled it
- Color Match of Single-Shade Versus Multi-Shade Resin Composites: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of horizontal posts to support MOD cavities compared with other restorative approaches in endodontically treated teeth: systematic review with meta-analysis of laboratory studies.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Managing Fractured Ceramic Restorations: Current Evidence and Best Practices-A Scoping Review.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Biogenic Selenium Nanoparticles Functionalized with Natural Polymers or Phytochemicals for Targeted Disruption ofJournal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of large language models for guideline-compliant abstract generation and readability in dental research: an experimental comparative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Performance of Polyethylene Fibers and Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resins in Direct Restorations: A Scoping Review.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Highly Filled Flowable Composite Resins as Sole Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo provide a guide for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dentistry, with emphasis on translating research findings into clinical practice. OVERVIEW: Systematic reviews are essential tools for synthesizing research findings and translating evidence into clinical practice. These reviews help to identify the most effective treatment options and to determine areas requiring further research. A structured approach, including defining a concise research question, conducting comprehensive literature searches, and assessing the risk of bias, is critical for ensuring the review's trustworthiness. The GRADE approach facilitates the assessment of the certainty of evidence, which is crucial for formulating conclusions and making informed clinical decisions.
conclusionSystematic reviews provide invaluable insights into clinical decision-making by compiling, analyzing, and synthesizing multiple primary studies. Following a rigorous methodology ensures that systematic reviews are comprehensive, unbiased, and clinically relevant, ultimately contributing to better patient care and achieving better clinical outcomes. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Methodologically sound systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide clinicians with high-quality, synthesized evidence, enabling informed clinical decisions and improved patient outcomes. They save time by consolidating research, informing treatment choices, and facilitating the translation of knowledge into clinical practice.
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.