Beyond the hype: A critical appraisal of the limitations and misconceptions of systematic reviews in the Oral pathology and medicine field.
oral medicine
oral pathology
peer review
review
systematic review
Journal
Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology
ISSN: 1600-0714
Titre abrégé: J Oral Pathol Med
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 8911934
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
08
05
2023
accepted:
16
05
2023
medline:
13
7
2023
pubmed:
26
6
2023
entrez:
26
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Systematic reviews (SRs) have become a popular approach for evidence-based practice, being considered a lens through which evidence is viewed and applied. However, several published studies have been identified as scoping reviews rather than SRs. This methodological error can negatively impact clinical decision-making or new research conceptualization. This letter focuses on the increasing number of SRs in oral pathology and medicine, highlighting the most frequent methodological mistakes. We providing general guidance to help researchers conceptualize better their SRs and for the critical evaluation of SRs by scientific journal reviewers. Clinicians, pathologists, and reviewers, must ensure the quality of the published information.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews (SRs) have become a popular approach for evidence-based practice, being considered a lens through which evidence is viewed and applied. However, several published studies have been identified as scoping reviews rather than SRs. This methodological error can negatively impact clinical decision-making or new research conceptualization.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
This letter focuses on the increasing number of SRs in oral pathology and medicine, highlighting the most frequent methodological mistakes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We providing general guidance to help researchers conceptualize better their SRs and for the critical evaluation of SRs by scientific journal reviewers.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians, pathologists, and reviewers, must ensure the quality of the published information.
Types de publication
Letter
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
564-566Informations de copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9-14. doi:10.4103/2249-4863.109934
Hopf H, Matlin SA, Mehta G, Krief A. Blocking the hype-hypocrisy-falsification-fakery pathway is needed to safeguard science. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2020;59(6):2150-2154. doi:10.1002/anie.201911889
Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Pacheco RL, Riera R, Santos GM, et al. Many systematic reviews with a single author are indexed in PubMed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;156:124-126. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.007
Layton D. A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: Are Systematic Reviews Actually Systematic? Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:13-21. doi:10.11607/ijp.5193