Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reviews Systematic and Meta-analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Oral Epidemiology

Part of the book series: Textbooks in Contemporary Dentistry ((TECD))

Abstract

Systematic reviews are increasingly used in dentistry and have expanded from mainly synthesizing interventional trials to observational studies. Systematic review denotes a type of scientific study that seeks to gather and examine all studies carried out on a specific question in order to provide an unbiased summary of the evidence, following a predefined, comprehensive and objective approach. Systematic reviews need to address bias in the included studies and are oftentimes subject to bias themselves, which should be considered during their planning and conduct. Systematic reviews should further address statistical, methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Besides qualitative synthesis, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis are often used to synthesize data. Further exploration of subgroup effects of confounding variables via meta-regression can be useful but needs careful planning. The possibility to compare multiple groups within or among studies, a network meta-analysis has shown to be a very useful statistical technique. Results of systematic reviews are further applied in health economics and implementation research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:12–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Clarke M, Langhorne P. Revisiting the Cochrane collaboration. Meeting the challenge of Archie Cochrane – and facing up to some new ones. BMJ. 2001;323:821.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Celeste RK, Bastos JL, Faerstein E. Trends in the investigation of social determinants of health: selected themes and methods. Cad Saude Publica. 2011;27:183–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Muniz FWMG, Celeste RK, Oballe HJR, Rösing CK. Citation analysis and trends in review articles in dentistry. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018;18:110–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M. Systematic reviews of observational studies. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Syst. Rev. Heal. Care meta-analysis context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2001. p. 211–27.

    Google Scholar 

  6. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 5.1.0. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cook DJ, Greengold NL, Ellrodt AG, Weingarten SR. The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:210–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ. 2001;322:98–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kassebaum NJ, Bernabe E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W. Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. J Dent Res. 2015;94:650–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shapiro S. Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:771–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Feinstein AR. Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:71–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Greenland S. Can meta-analysis be salvaged? Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:783–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Petitti DB. Of babies and bathwater. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:779–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Estrogen replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: a quantitative assessment of the epidemiologic evidence. Prev Med. 1991;20:47–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC, et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:523–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gibbs RS, Romero R, Hillier SL, Eschenbach DA, Sweet RL. A review of premature birth and subclinical infection. Am J Obs Gynecol. 1992;166:1515–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Offenbacher S, Katz V, Fertik G, Collins J, Boyd D, Maynor G, McKaig R, Beck J. Periodontal infection as a possible risk factor for preterm low birth weight. J Periodontol. 1996;67:1103–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Madianos PN, Bobetsis GA, Kinane DF. Is periodontitis associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease and preterm and/or low birth weight births? J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29(Suppl 3):22–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vettore MV, Lamarca Gde A, Leao AT, Thomaz FB, Sheiham A, Leal Mdo C. Periodontal infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Cad Saude Publica. 2006;22:2041–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Scannapieco FA, Bush RB, Paju S. Periodontal disease as a risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8:70–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Michalowicz BS, Hodges JS, DiAngelis AJ, et al. Treatment of periodontal disease and the risk of preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1885–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwendicke F, Karimbux N, Allareddy V, Gluud C. Periodontal treatment for preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes: a meta- and trial sequential analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0129060.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Victora CG, Habicht J-PP, Bryce J. Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomized trials. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:400–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Macintyre S. Good intentions and received wisdom are not good enough: the need for controlled trials in public health. J Epidemiol Commun Heal. 2010;65:564–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Khan KS, ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. In: CRD Rep. Number 4. 2nd ed. York: CRD Publications Office; 2001. p. 277.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Clarke M, Oxman A. Cochrane reviews will be in Medline. BMJ. 1999;319:1435.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Hothorn T, Everitt BS. Meta-Analysis: Nicotine Gum and Smoking Cessation and the Efficacy of BCG Vaccine in the Treatment of Tuberculosis. In: A Handbook of Statistical Analyses using R; 3rd ed CRC Press: Boca Raton; 2014. 344–361.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Stroup DF. MOOSE statement: meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI how to use an overview Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Felson DT. Bias in meta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:885–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998;316:61–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Clarke MJ, Stewart LA. Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses? BMJ. 1994;309:1007–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263:1385–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267:374–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet (London, England). 1991;337:867–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315:640–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, Clifton J, Buckingham L, Willan A, McIlroy W, Oxman AD. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA. 1993;269:2749–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:1286–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994;272:158–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lusher A, Lefebvre C, Westby M. A comparison of handsearching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Stat Med. 2002;21:1625–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Clark OAC, Castro AA. Searching the Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) database improves systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:112–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gøtzsche PC. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ. 1987;295:654–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 1997;315:635–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Chalmers IG, Collins RE, Dickersin K. Controlled trials and meta-analyses can help resolve disagreements among orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:641–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med. 1982;72:233–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O’Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L’Abbé KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Mallen C, Peat G, Croft P. Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:765–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. In: Ottawa Hosp. Res. Inst. 2011. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.

  54. Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Cavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet (London, England). 1997;350:185–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet (London, England). 2001;357:1191–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323:157–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Egger M, Smith GD, Sterne JAC. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clin Med (Northfield Il). 2001;1:478–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Greenland S, O’Rourke K. Meta-analysis. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Mod. Epidemiol. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Williams; 2008. p. 652–82.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schwendicke F, Blunck U, Tu Y-K, Göstemeyer G. Does classification of composites for network meta-analyses lead to erroneous conclusions? Oper Dent. 2018;43:213–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Higgins JP, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1996;15:2733–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Muniz FWMG, Taminski K, Cavagni J, Celeste RK, Weidlich P, Rösing CK. The effect of statins on periodontal treatment—a systematic review with meta-analyses and meta-regression. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:671–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ. 2001;322:1479–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R. Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med. 1984;3:409–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chalmers I. The Cochrane collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:156–63; discussion 163–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1998;17:841–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ Br Med J. 2003;327:557–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Schwendicke F, Splieth CH, Thomson WM, Reda S, Stolpe M, Foster Page L. Cost-effectiveness of caries-preventive fluoride varnish applications in clinic settings among patients of low, moderate and high risk. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018;46:8–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997;315:1533–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Schwendicke F, Innes N, Levey C, Lamont T, Göstemeyer G. Comparator choice in cariology trials limits conclusions on the comparative effectiveness of caries interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:209–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Schwendicke F, Göstemeyer G. Understanding dentists’ management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implement Sci. 2016;11:142.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JPA. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ. 2003;327:1083–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Waters E, Doyle J. Systematic reviews of public health in developing countries are in train. BMJ. 2004;328:585.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive and Social Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

    Roger Keller Celeste

  2. Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Berlin, Germany

    Falk Schwendicke

Authors
  1. Roger Keller Celeste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Falk Schwendicke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger Keller Celeste .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Dental Research Institute, National Dental Centre Singapore, Singapore

    Marco A. Peres

  2. School of Public Health, University of São Paulo Faculty of Public Health, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Jose Leopoldo Ferreira Antunes

  3. Dept. of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK

    Richard G. Watt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Celeste, R.K., Schwendicke, F. (2021). Reviews Systematic and Meta-analysis. In: Peres, M.A., Antunes, J.L.F., Watt, R.G. (eds) Oral Epidemiology. Textbooks in Contemporary Dentistry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50123-5_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50123-5_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50122-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-50123-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation