BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs.Methods and FindingsWe searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics.ConclusionsAn increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research.

Because there are several ways to cement glass-fiber posts (GFPs) into root canals, there is no consensus on the best strategy to achieve high bond strengths. A systematic review was conducted to determine if there is difference in bond strength to dentin between regular and self-adhesive resin cements and to verify the influence of several variables on the retention of GFPs. This report followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. In vitro studies that investigated the bond strength of GFPs luted with self-adhesive and regular resin cements were selected. Searches were carried out in the PubMed and Scopus databases. No publication year or language limit was used, and the last search was done in October 2012. A global comparison was performed between self-adhesive and regular resin cements. Two subgroup analyses were performed: 1) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Etch-and-rinse adhesive and 2) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Self-etch adhesive. The analyses were carried out using fixed-effect and random-effects models. The results showed heterogeneity in all comparisons, and higher bond strength to dentin was identified for self-adhesive cements. Although the articles included in this meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity and high risk of bias, the in vitro literature seems to suggest that use of self-adhesive resin cement could improve the retention of GFPs into root canals.

BackgroundGuidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively.ResultsOf the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection.ConclusionsAlthough reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study aimed to identify factors that can affect the retention of glass fiber posts to intra-radicular dentin based on in vitro studies that compared the bond strength (BS) of GFPs cemented with resin cements. Searches were carried out in PubMed and Scopus until December 2013. Bond strength values and variables as type of tooth, presence of endodontic treatment, pretreatment of the post, type of bonding agent (if present), type of cement and mode of cement application were extracted from the 34 included studies. A linear regression model was used to evaluate the influence of these parameters on BS. The presence of endodontic treatment decreased the BS values in 22.7% considering the pooled data (p = 0.013). For regular cement, cleaning the post increased BS when compared to silane application without cleaning (p = 0.032), considering cleaning as ethanol, air abrasion, or phosphoric acid application. Applying the cement around the post and into root canal decreased the resistance compared to only around the post (p = 0.02) or only into root canal (p = 0.041), on the other hand, no difference was found for self-adhesive resin cement for the same comparisons (p = 0.858 and p = 0.067). Endodontic treatment, method of cement application, and post pretreatment are factors that might significantly affect the retention of glass-fiber posts into root canals mainly when cemented with regular resin cement. Self-adhesive resin cements were found to be less technique-sensitive to luting procedures as compared with regular resin cements.

No abstract