How to Reduce Waste Research in Systematic Reviews of Oral Diseases

Document Type : Letter to Editor

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Endodontics, Dental school, Kerman University of Medical Sciences

3 DDS Private Practice

4 Department of Oral Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences., Kerman, Iran

Abstract

 



Keywords

Main Subjects


1. Navabi N, Shahravan A, Pourmonajem S, Hashemipour MA.
Knowledge and use of evidence-based dentistry among Iranian
dentists. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2014;14(2):e223-30.
2. Khattak A. 44. Evidence based dentistry. J Indian Prosthodont
Soc. 2018;18(Suppl 2):S88. doi: 10.4103/0972-4052.246548.
3. Lang LA, Teich ST. A critical appraisal of evidence-based
dentistry: the best available evidence. J Prosthet Dent.
2014;111(6):485-92. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.001.
4. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew
M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and
meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev.
2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
5. Adobes Martin M, Santamans Faustino S, Llario Almiñana
I, Aiuto R, Rotundo R, Garcovich D. There is still room for
improvement in the completeness of abstract reporting
according to the PRISMA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study
on systematic reviews in periodontology. BMC Med Res
Methodol. 2021;21(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01223-y.
6. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, Mayhew A, Skidmore
B, Stevens A, et al. Systematic review adherence to
methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):131.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2.
7. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research
waste. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):122-3. doi: 10.1016/s0140-
6736(15)01353-7.
8. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How
important are comprehensive literature searches and the
assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical
study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1-76. doi: 10.3310/
hta7010.
9. Lund H, Juhl C, Christensen R. Systematic reviews and research
waste. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):123-4. doi: 10.1016/s0140-
6736(15)01354-9.
10. Navabi N, Shahravan A, Taghavi Yazdi SM, Montajab
F. Probability of publication bias in published articles
resulting from dental dissertations of medical sciences
universities in Iran. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr.
2020;19(1):e4756. doi: 10.4034/pboci.2019.191.104.
11. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J,
Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste
when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156-
65. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62229-1.
12. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and
eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep
up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. doi: 10.1371/journal.
pmed.1000326.
13. Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Influence
of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: metaepidemiological study.
BMJ. 2013;346:f2304. doi: 10.1136/
bmj.f2304.
14. Jones AP, Conroy E, Williamson PR, Clarke M, Gamble C.
The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and
conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR
HTA funded trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:50. doi:
10.1186/1471-2288-13-50.