Orthodontic treatment for deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

“…In all reviews, the reporting of 8 of the 11 items was adequate (Figure 1 ). The weakest area was failure to report the likelihood of publication bias, in 14 reviews (38%), which did not assess publication bias [ 11 - 13 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 24 - 26 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 42 , 43 ]. One review did not use “grey” literature as an inclusion criterion [ 34 ] and in another, the methods used to combine the findings of studies were inappropriate [ 38 ].…”

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

“…In all reviews, the reporting of 8 of the 11 items was adequate (Figure 1 ). The weakest area was failure to report the likelihood of publication bias, in 14 reviews (38%), which did not assess publication bias [ 11 - 13 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 24 - 26 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 42 , 43 ]. One review did not use “grey” literature as an inclusion criterion [ 34 ] and in another, the methods used to combine the findings of studies were inappropriate [ 38 ].…”

Stability of deep-bite correction: A systematic review

“…Data from one study [28] was supplemented with data from a thesis reporting on the same patients [32]. Excluded articles, with reasons, are provided in Appendix B [5,33–56]. …”

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: what have we learned?

“…Excluding duplicate publications, a total of 51 orthodontic-related SRs were identified from January 2000 to January 2007 . Of these 15 reviews reported evidence of insufficient methodological quality, and internal validity making potential conclusions unreliable [9][10][11][12]16,18,19,25,39,40,46,49,50,53,57 . The remaining articles arrived at the following evidence-based conclusions:…”

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

“…In all reviews, the reporting of 8 of the 11 items was adequate (Figure 1 ). The weakest area was failure to report the likelihood of publication bias, in 14 reviews (38%), which did not assess publication bias [ 11 - 13 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 24 - 26 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 42 , 43 ]. One review did not use “grey” literature as an inclusion criterion [ 34 ] and in another, the methods used to combine the findings of studies were inappropriate [ 38 ].…”

Stability of deep-bite correction: A systematic review

“…Data from one study [28] was supplemented with data from a thesis reporting on the same patients [32]. Excluded articles, with reasons, are provided in Appendix B [5,33–56]. …”

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: what have we learned?

“…Excluding duplicate publications, a total of 51 orthodontic-related SRs were identified from January 2000 to January 2007 . Of these 15 reviews reported evidence of insufficient methodological quality, and internal validity making potential conclusions unreliable [9][10][11][12]16,18,19,25,39,40,46,49,50,53,57 . The remaining articles arrived at the following evidence-based conclusions:…”

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

“…In all reviews, the reporting of 8 of the 11 items was adequate (Figure 1 ). The weakest area was failure to report the likelihood of publication bias, in 14 reviews (38%), which did not assess publication bias [ 11 - 13 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 24 - 26 , 34 , 35 , 38 , 42 , 43 ]. One review did not use “grey” literature as an inclusion criterion [ 34 ] and in another, the methods used to combine the findings of studies were inappropriate [ 38 ].…”

Stability of deep-bite correction: A systematic review

“…Data from one study [28] was supplemented with data from a thesis reporting on the same patients [32]. Excluded articles, with reasons, are provided in Appendix B [5,33–56]. …”

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: what have we learned?

“…Excluding duplicate publications, a total of 51 orthodontic-related SRs were identified from January 2000 to January 2007 . Of these 15 reviews reported evidence of insufficient methodological quality, and internal validity making potential conclusions unreliable [9][10][11][12]16,18,19,25,39,40,46,49,50,53,57 . The remaining articles arrived at the following evidence-based conclusions:…”