Do systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in the dental literature, comply with the QUOROM and PRISMA statements?



Al-Ramadhan, Noor
Do systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in the dental literature, comply with the QUOROM and PRISMA statements? Doctor of Philosophy thesis, University of Liverpool.

[thumbnail of Al-Ramadhan,_Noo,_2011,_4513.pdf] PDF
Al-Ramadhan,_Noo,_2011,_4513.pdf - Unspecified
Access to this file is embargoed until Unspecified.
After the embargo period this will be available under License Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives.

Download (2MB)
[thumbnail of Al-RamadhanNoo_Oct2011_4513.pdf] PDF
Al-RamadhanNoo_Oct2011_4513.pdf - Author Accepted Manuscript
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives.

Download (1MB)

Abstract

Background: The QUOROM and PRISMA guidelines were created in an attempt to improve the standard of reporting systematic reviews. At present there are no studies in the dental literature that have assessed the compliance of papers with these two sets of guidelines. Aims: To determine whether the reports of systematic reviews in four dental specialities comply with the QUOROM and PRISMA statements, whether there has been an improvement in standard over time and whether Cochrane reviews differ from other reviews. Design: Retrospective observational study Method: A search of the Cochrane library identified 181 systematic reviews and meta-analyses for inclusion across four dental specialities (orthodontics, periodontics, preventive dentistry and endodontics). Each review was scored using a 63-item checklist developed from the QUOROM guidelines and a 63-item checklist developed from the PRISMA guidelines. Results: The mean QUOROM score for the whole sample was 70.86% (SD 11.36%, 95% CI 69.20%, 70.86%) and the mean PRISMA score for the whole sample was 74.07% (SD 10.48%, 95% CI 72.53%, 75.61%). The mean PRISMA score for Cochrane reviews was 85.19% (SD 5.03%, 95% CI 83.79%, 86.59%) and the mean PRISMA score for non-Cochrane reviews was 69.59% (SD 8.60%, 95% CI 68.09%, 71.09%). This difference was statistically significant (mean difference 15.50% (95% CI 13.58%, 17.62%; p

Item Type: Thesis (Doctor of Philosophy)
Additional Information: Date: 2011-10 (completed)
Subjects: ?? R1 ??
?? RK ??
Divisions: Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > Institute of Life Courses and Medical Sciences > School of Dentistry
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 30 May 2012 10:05
Last Modified: 16 Dec 2022 04:36
DOI: 10.17638/00004513
Supervisors:
URI: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/4513