The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry
Evidence-Based DentistryPublished 1 March 2004Open access
Derek Richards
Citations17
SJR quartileQ2
SJR score0.45
SNIP0.65
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry could be improved if future clinical decisions are to be based upon systematic reviews, it is imperative that reviews address clinically-relevant, focused questions, and follow a transparent, well-designed protocol.
Abstract
The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry could be improved. If future clinical decisions are to be based upon systematic reviews, it is imperative that reviews address clinically-relevant, focused questions, and follow a transparent, well-designed protocol.
Keywords
Social SciencesDecision Sciences
JAMAMeta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
20,682 Citations2000Donna F. Stroup
A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
The LancetImproving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
4,808 Citations1999David Moher, Fadi Hammal +4 more
This report hopes this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.