A mapping review of systematic reviews in orthodontics: a five-year analysis.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Victor de Miranda Ladewig, Cristine Miron Stefani, Graziela De Luca Canto, Nikolaos Pandis, Carlos Flores-Mir
{"title":"A mapping review of systematic reviews in orthodontics: a five-year analysis.","authors":"Victor de Miranda Ladewig, Cristine Miron Stefani, Graziela De Luca Canto, Nikolaos Pandis, Carlos Flores-Mir","doi":"10.1093/ejo/cjaf040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This mapping review aimed to identify trends, frequently reviewed topics and assess the methodological quality of recent orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>SRs published between January 2018 and June 2023 were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data, with a third resolving discrepancies. Methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR-2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 3,131 initial articles, 430 SRs were included. A publication increase of over 50% occurred from 2019 to 2022. The most frequent topics were palatal expansion (12.6%), techniques to accelerate orthodontic movement (11.6%), and clear aligners (9.3%). Only 18.2% of SRs were rated as high or moderate quality, with those on clear aligners rated the lowest (4.9%). Common methodological weaknesses included a lack of protocol registration, absence of excluded study lists, and failure to address publication bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Orthodontic SRs have increased significantly over the five-year period assessed, with notable increase in contributions from specific countries. However, most SRs exhibited low methodological quality, raising concerns about clinical applicability. Improved adherence to methodological and reporting standards is crucial for enhancing SR quality and credibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":11989,"journal":{"name":"European journal of orthodontics","volume":"47 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12093318/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaf040","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This mapping review aimed to identify trends, frequently reviewed topics and assess the methodological quality of recent orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs).

Methods: SRs published between January 2018 and June 2023 were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data, with a third resolving discrepancies. Methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR-2.

Results: From 3,131 initial articles, 430 SRs were included. A publication increase of over 50% occurred from 2019 to 2022. The most frequent topics were palatal expansion (12.6%), techniques to accelerate orthodontic movement (11.6%), and clear aligners (9.3%). Only 18.2% of SRs were rated as high or moderate quality, with those on clear aligners rated the lowest (4.9%). Common methodological weaknesses included a lack of protocol registration, absence of excluded study lists, and failure to address publication bias.

Conclusions: Orthodontic SRs have increased significantly over the five-year period assessed, with notable increase in contributions from specific countries. However, most SRs exhibited low methodological quality, raising concerns about clinical applicability. Improved adherence to methodological and reporting standards is crucial for enhancing SR quality and credibility.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

正畸学系统综述的地图回顾:五年分析。
目的:本地图综述旨在确定趋势,经常回顾的主题,并评估最近正畸系统综述(SRs)的方法学质量。方法:从PubMed、EMBASE、SCOPUS、Web of Science和谷歌Scholar中检索2018年1月至2023年6月发表的论文。两位审稿人独立选择研究和提取数据,第三位审稿人解决差异。采用AMSTAR-2评价方法学质量。结果:在3131篇初始文章中,纳入了430篇SRs。从2019年到2022年,出版物增长了50%以上。最常见的话题是腭扩张(12.6%),加速正畸运动的技术(11.6%)和清除对准器(9.3%)。只有18.2%的SRs被评为高质量或中等质量,而使用透明矫正器的SRs被评为最低(4.9%)。常见的方法学缺陷包括缺乏方案注册、缺乏排除研究列表以及未能解决发表偏倚。结论:在评估的五年期间,正畸SRs显著增加,特定国家的贡献显著增加。然而,大多数SRs表现出较低的方法学质量,引起了对临床适用性的担忧。改进对方法和报告标准的遵守对于提高社会责任质量和可信度至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European journal of orthodontics
European journal of orthodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Orthodontics publishes papers of excellence on all aspects of orthodontics including craniofacial development and growth. The emphasis of the journal is on full research papers. Succinct and carefully prepared papers are favoured in terms of impact as well as readability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信