Department of Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
J Clin Periodontol. 2013 Sep;40(9):883-8. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12132. Epub 2013 Jul 3.
To perform an overview of literature search strategies in systematic reviews (SRs) published in periodontology and implant dentistry.
Two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Database of SRs) were searched, independently and in duplicate, for SRs with meta-analyses on interventions, with the last search performed on 11 November 2012. Manual searches of the reference lists of included SRs and 10 specialty dental journals were conducted. Methodological issues of the search strategies of included SRs were assessed with Cochrane collaboration guidelines and AMSTAR recommendations. The search strategies employed in Cochrane and paper-based SRs were compared.
A total of 146 SRs with meta-analyses were included, including 19 Cochrane and 127 paper-based SRs. Some issues, such as "the use of keywords," were reported in most of the SRs (86%). Other issues, such as "search of grey literature" and "language restriction," were not fully reported (34% and 50% respectively). The quality of search strategy reporting in Cochrane SRs was better than that of paper-based SRs for seven of the eight criteria assessed.
There is room for improving the quality of reporting of search strategies in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry, particularly in SRs published in paper-based journals.
对牙周病学和种植学领域系统评价（SR）中文献检索策略进行概述。
我们分别在 2012 年 11 月 11 日之前，独立重复地在两个电子数据库（PubMed 和 Cochrane SR 数据库）中检索了干预措施的 meta 分析的 SR，并对纳入的 SR 的参考文献列表和 10 种专业牙科期刊进行了手工检索。使用 Cochrane 协作指南和 AMSTAR 建议评估纳入的 SR 检索策略的方法学问题。比较了 Cochrane 和基于纸张的 SR 中使用的检索策略。
共纳入 146 篇具有 meta 分析的 SR，包括 19 篇 Cochrane 和 127 篇基于纸张的 SR。大多数 SR（86%）报告了一些问题，如“使用关键词”。其他问题，如“灰色文献的搜索”和“语言限制”，未得到充分报告（分别为 34%和 50%）。在评估的八项标准中，Cochrane SR 中检索策略报告的质量在七个方面优于基于纸张的 SR。
在牙周病学和种植学领域，特别是在基于纸张的期刊发表的 SR 中，文献检索策略的报告质量仍有提高的空间。
