{"title":"The power of systematic review and meta-analysis in advancing oral medicine and radiology","authors":"ML Avinash Tejasvi","doi":"10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_184_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Greetings from the Editorial Team. Dear IAOMR Members, It is my privilege to address all the members of the Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology (IAOMR) and share some insights on the importance of systematic review and meta-analysis in our field. In an era of evidence-based practice, these methodologies have emerged as indispensable tools for synthesizing existing research and providing valuable insights for clinical decision-making. The meta-analysis did not begin to appear regularly in the medical literature until the late 1970s but since then a plethora of meta-analyses have emerged and the growth is exponential over time.[1] The significance of systematic review and meta-analysis lies in their ability to overcome the limitations of individual studies, such as sample size, bias, and conflicting findings. By collating data from various sources, these methods increase statistical power, reduce uncertainty, and provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence. Consequently, they have become crucial in guiding evidence-based practice and clinical decision-making. Identifying Knowledge Gaps and Research Priorities: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses also play a pivotal role in identifying knowledge gaps within our field. Through the process of systematically reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify areas where evidence is lacking or conflicting. This identification of gaps not only highlights the need for further research but also assists in setting research priorities for the future. During the systematic review process, the quality of studies is evaluated, and a statistical meta-analysis of the study results is conducted based on their quality. Usually, to obtain more reliable results, a meta-analysis is mainly conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which have a high level of evidence. Since 1999, various papers have presented guidelines for reporting meta-analyses of RCTs. Following the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses (QUORUM) statement and the appearance of registers such as Cochrane Library’s Methodology Register, a large number of systematic literature reviews have been registered. In 2009, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was published, and it greatly helped standardize and improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.[2] To solve those hindrances, Tawfik GM et al. have recommended a flow diagram [Figure 1], which illustrates detailed and step-by-step stages for systematic review or meta-analysis studies.[3]Figure 1: Detailed flow diagram guideline for systematic review and meta-analysis steps. Note: Star icon refers to “2—reviewers screen independently” Courtesy: Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step-by-step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health 2019;47:46-54Validating and Challenging Existing Paradigms: The cumulative nature of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allows for validating or challenging existing paradigms. By synthesizing evidence from multiple studies, these methodologies can confirm or refute prevailing theories and practices. In cases where discrepancies or conflicting evidence arise, they provide an opportunity for critical evaluation, reanalysis, and reconsideration of established norms. This iterative process promotes scientific progress and drives the evolution of our field. CONCLUSION In conclusion, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have revolutionized the way we approach research and clinical decision-making in oral medicine and radiology. They have become essential tools for synthesizing evidence, guiding practice, identifying knowledge gaps, and challenging existing paradigms. As researchers and clinicians, it is our responsibility to embrace these methodologies and contribute to their advancement. By doing so, we can collectively strengthen the foundation of our field, promote evidence-based practice, and improve patient outcomes. I wish you all fruitful endeavors in your research pursuits, and I look forward to publishing the exciting contributions that arise from your engagement with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Jai Hind","PeriodicalId":31366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_184_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Greetings from the Editorial Team. Dear IAOMR Members, It is my privilege to address all the members of the Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology (IAOMR) and share some insights on the importance of systematic review and meta-analysis in our field. In an era of evidence-based practice, these methodologies have emerged as indispensable tools for synthesizing existing research and providing valuable insights for clinical decision-making. The meta-analysis did not begin to appear regularly in the medical literature until the late 1970s but since then a plethora of meta-analyses have emerged and the growth is exponential over time.[1] The significance of systematic review and meta-analysis lies in their ability to overcome the limitations of individual studies, such as sample size, bias, and conflicting findings. By collating data from various sources, these methods increase statistical power, reduce uncertainty, and provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence. Consequently, they have become crucial in guiding evidence-based practice and clinical decision-making. Identifying Knowledge Gaps and Research Priorities: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses also play a pivotal role in identifying knowledge gaps within our field. Through the process of systematically reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify areas where evidence is lacking or conflicting. This identification of gaps not only highlights the need for further research but also assists in setting research priorities for the future. During the systematic review process, the quality of studies is evaluated, and a statistical meta-analysis of the study results is conducted based on their quality. Usually, to obtain more reliable results, a meta-analysis is mainly conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which have a high level of evidence. Since 1999, various papers have presented guidelines for reporting meta-analyses of RCTs. Following the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses (QUORUM) statement and the appearance of registers such as Cochrane Library’s Methodology Register, a large number of systematic literature reviews have been registered. In 2009, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was published, and it greatly helped standardize and improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.[2] To solve those hindrances, Tawfik GM et al. have recommended a flow diagram [Figure 1], which illustrates detailed and step-by-step stages for systematic review or meta-analysis studies.[3]Figure 1: Detailed flow diagram guideline for systematic review and meta-analysis steps. Note: Star icon refers to “2—reviewers screen independently” Courtesy: Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step-by-step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health 2019;47:46-54Validating and Challenging Existing Paradigms: The cumulative nature of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allows for validating or challenging existing paradigms. By synthesizing evidence from multiple studies, these methodologies can confirm or refute prevailing theories and practices. In cases where discrepancies or conflicting evidence arise, they provide an opportunity for critical evaluation, reanalysis, and reconsideration of established norms. This iterative process promotes scientific progress and drives the evolution of our field. CONCLUSION In conclusion, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have revolutionized the way we approach research and clinical decision-making in oral medicine and radiology. They have become essential tools for synthesizing evidence, guiding practice, identifying knowledge gaps, and challenging existing paradigms. As researchers and clinicians, it is our responsibility to embrace these methodologies and contribute to their advancement. By doing so, we can collectively strengthen the foundation of our field, promote evidence-based practice, and improve patient outcomes. I wish you all fruitful endeavors in your research pursuits, and I look forward to publishing the exciting contributions that arise from your engagement with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Jai Hind
来自编辑团队的问候。我很荣幸能向印度口腔医学与放射学会(IAOMR)的所有成员发表讲话,并分享一些关于系统评价和荟萃分析在我们领域的重要性的见解。在循证实践的时代,这些方法已成为综合现有研究和为临床决策提供有价值见解的不可或缺的工具。直到20世纪70年代末,元分析才开始在医学文献中定期出现,但从那时起,大量的元分析出现了,随着时间的推移,增长呈指数级增长。[1]系统评价和荟萃分析的意义在于它们能够克服个体研究的局限性,如样本量、偏倚和相互矛盾的发现。通过整理来自不同来源的数据,这些方法增加了统计能力,减少了不确定性,并提供了对现有证据的全面概述。因此,它们在指导循证实践和临床决策方面变得至关重要。识别知识差距和研究重点:系统综述和荟萃分析在识别我们领域的知识差距方面也起着关键作用。通过系统地回顾现有文献的过程,研究人员可以确定证据缺乏或相互冲突的领域。这种差距的识别不仅突出了进一步研究的需要,而且有助于确定未来的研究重点。在系统评价过程中,评估研究的质量,并根据研究的质量对研究结果进行统计荟萃分析。通常,为了获得更可靠的结果,meta分析主要是对随机对照试验(rct)进行,这些试验具有较高的证据水平。自1999年以来,各种论文提出了报告随机对照试验荟萃分析的指南。随着meta分析报告质量(QUORUM)声明和诸如Cochrane图书馆方法学登记册等登记册的出现,大量系统的文献综述被登记。2009年,PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta- analysis)声明发布,极大地规范和提高了系统评价和meta-分析的质量。[2]为了解决这些障碍,Tawfik GM等人推荐了一个流程图[图1],它说明了系统评价或荟萃分析研究的详细和逐步阶段。[3]图1:系统评价和元分析步骤的详细流程图指南。附注:星形图标指的是“独立的2位审阅者筛选”:Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM等。一步一步的指导进行系统的审查和元分析与模拟数据。验证和挑战现有范式:系统评价和荟萃分析的累积性质允许验证或挑战现有范式。通过综合来自多个研究的证据,这些方法可以证实或反驳流行的理论和实践。在出现差异或相互矛盾的证据的情况下,它们提供了对既定规范进行批判性评估、重新分析和重新考虑的机会。这个反复的过程促进了科学进步,推动了我们领域的发展。总之,系统评价和荟萃分析彻底改变了口腔医学和放射学研究和临床决策的方式。它们已成为综合证据、指导实践、识别知识差距和挑战现有范式的重要工具。作为研究人员和临床医生,我们有责任接受这些方法并为其进步做出贡献。通过这样做,我们可以共同加强我们领域的基础,促进循证实践,并改善患者的治疗效果。我希望你们在研究中取得丰硕的成果,我期待着你们在系统综述和元分析方面发表令人兴奋的贡献。胜利后
期刊介绍:
Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology (JIAOMR) (ISSN: Print - 0972-1363, Online - 0975-1572), an official publication of the Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology (IAOMR), is a peer-reviewed journal, published Quarterly , both in the form of hard copies (print version) as well as on the web (electronic version). The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.jiaomr.in. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive final accepted version of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional / subject-based repository.