ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2025
A mapping review of systematic reviews in orthodontics: a five-year analysis.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of preformed orthodontic archwires with modified dental arch forms: A cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis of Accelerated Orthodontics Research in the Middle East Across Three Major Databases.Cureus · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Clinical Success of Clear Aligners for Rotational Tooth Movements in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis mapping review aimed to identify trends, frequently reviewed topics and assess the methodological quality of recent orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs).
methodsSRs published between January 2018 and June 2023 were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data, with a third resolving discrepancies. Methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR-2.
resultsFrom 3,131 initial articles, 430 SRs were included. A publication increase of over 50% occurred from 2019 to 2022. The most frequent topics were palatal expansion (12.6%), techniques to accelerate orthodontic movement (11.6%), and clear aligners (9.3%). Only 18.2% of SRs were rated as high or moderate quality, with those on clear aligners rated the lowest (4.9%). Common methodological weaknesses included a lack of protocol registration, absence of excluded study lists, and failure to address publication bias.
conclusionsOrthodontic SRs have increased significantly over the five-year period assessed, with notable increase in contributions from specific countries. However, most SRs exhibited low methodological quality, raising concerns about clinical applicability. Improved adherence to methodological and reporting standards is crucial for enhancing SR quality and credibility.
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.