For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
11
views
59
references
 Top references
cited by
3
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      281
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Developing evidence-based dentistry skills: how to interpret randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Decision-making based on reliable evidence is more likely to lead to effective and efficient treatments. Evidence-based dentistry was developed, similarly to evidence-based medicine, to help clinicians apply current and valid research findings into their own clinical practice. Interpreting and appraising the literature is fundamental and involves the development of evidence-based dentistry (EBD) skills. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to be evidence of the highest level in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Furthermore, the assessment of the report of a RCT, as well as a SR, can lead to an estimation of how the study was designed and conducted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.

          P Jüni, D Altman, M. Egger (2001)
          Article 0 comments Cited 455 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions.

            D J Cook, C D Mulrow, R B Haynes (1997)
            Systematic reviews can help practitioners keep abreast of the medical literature by summarizing large bodies of evidence and helping to explain differences among studies on the same question. A systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several primary studies. Because the review process itself (like any other type of research) is subject to bias, a useful review requires clear reporting of information obtained using rigorous methods. Used increasingly to inform medical decision making, plan future research agendas, and establish clinical policy, systematic reviews may strengthen the link between best research evidence and optimal health care.
            Article 0 comments Cited 343 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.

              Michael Altman, Thomas K F Schulz, D Moher … (2001)
              To comprehend the results of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through total transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by use of a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented here incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting this information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect, or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly shows the number of participants, for each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have done an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.
              Article 0 comments Cited 322 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Juliana Kiriakou: julikyri@yahoo.gr
                Nikolaos Pandis: npandis@gmail.com
                Phoebus Madianos: pmadian@dent.uoa.gr
                Argy Polychronopoulou: argy_poly@post.harvard.edu
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Prog Orthod
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Prog Orthod
                Title: Progress in Orthodontics
                Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                ISSN (Print): 1723-7785
                ISSN (Electronic): 2196-1042
                Publication date (Electronic): 30 October 2014
                Publication date PMC-release: 30 October 2014
                Publication date Collection: 2014
                Volume: 15
                Electronic Location Identifier: 58
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Athens, 2 Thivon Str, P.O. Box 18018, Athens, 115 27 Greece
                [ ]Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, School of Dental Medicine/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7 CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
                [ ]Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Athens, 2 Thivon Str, Athens, 115 27 Greece
                Article
                Publisher ID: 58
                DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0058-5
                PMC ID: 4384902
                SO-VID: 054cb3f6-292a-4555-b372-da55230811b6
                Copyright © © Kiriakou et al.; licensee Springer. 2014
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 1 October 2014
                Date accepted : 3 October 2014
                Categories
                Subject: Review
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2014

                Keywords: randomized controlled trials,systematic reviews,critical appraisal,evidence-based dentistry
                Data availability:
                Keywords: randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, critical appraisal, evidence-based dentistry

                Comments

                Comment on this article