Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Eur J Orthod. 2021 Oct 4;43(5):551-556. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjaa078.
This study aimed to assess the reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews (SRs) and hence their reproducibility.
A search of a single electronic database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify interventional orthodontic SRs with meta-analysis published within a 10-year period. The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was also sourced. Full articles were reviewed by two assessors against the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality of each search strategy was assessed using a previously validated checklist with a score of 1 or 2 given for each of the eight items. Cumulative totals were calculated. Guided by previous research, the authors agreed the following cut-offs to categorize the overall level of quality: 8-10 (poor), 10-12 (fair), and greater than 13 (good).
A total of 127 SRs were analysed. The overall median quality score for the reporting of the search strategy was 14 [interquartile range (IQR): 13-15]. Cochrane SRs and those originating in Europe received higher aggregate scores, whereas no difference was evident based on Prospero registration. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the overall score. Non-Cochrane reviews achieved lower overall scores compared to Cochrane reviews (-1.0, 95% confidence interval: -1.65, -0.34, P = 0.003). The most frequently searched database was EMBASE (N = 93) and the median number of authors was 5 (IQR 4-6). Authors of 26.8% of SRs searched the grey literature. Language restrictions were applied to the search strategies of 88 (69.3%) SRs.
The reporting quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic SRs is at a good level but differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews currently exist. The reporting of searching of the grey literature and application of no language restrictions can be improved.
本研究旨在评估正畸定量系统评价（SR）中检索策略的报告方法学质量，从而评估其可重复性。
对单个电子数据库（Medline 通过 PubMed）进行检索，以确定在 10 年内发表的具有荟萃分析的干预性正畸 SR。还对 Cochrane 系统评价图书馆进行了检索。两名评估员根据纳入标准对全文进行了评估。使用先前验证的检查表评估每个检索策略的报告质量，每个检查表有 8 个项目，每个项目得 1 分或 2 分。计算累计总分。根据以往的研究，作者同意采用以下截止值将整体质量水平分类：8-10（差）、10-12（中）和大于 13（好）。
共分析了 127 篇 SR。检索策略报告的总体中位数质量评分为 14 分（四分位距[IQR]：13-15 分）。Cochrane SR 和源自欧洲的 SR 获得了更高的综合评分，而 Prospero 注册则没有差异。对应作者所在的大洲决定了总体评分。非 Cochrane 综述的总体评分低于 Cochrane 综述（-1.0，95%置信区间：-1.65，-0.34，P=0.003）。检索最多的数据库是 EMBASE（N=93），作者中位数为 5 人（IQR 4-6 人）。26.8%的 SR 检索了灰色文献。88 篇（69.3%）SR 的检索策略有语言限制。
正畸 SR 中检索策略的报告质量处于良好水平，但 Cochrane 和非 Cochrane 综述之间目前存在差异。检索灰色文献和不应用语言限制的报告可以得到改进。
