Commentary

This review of the quality of systematic reviews was conducted by four members of the Cochrane Oral Health Group. The study does not claim to be a systematic review of systematic reviews in dentistry but it has been carried out in the manner of a high-quality review. One of its main findings is that only 19% of the systematic reviews in dentistry attempted to identify all the relevant studies; ironically, this is a charge that could be made against this one were it a systematic review. Other areas are also identified of which dental researchers need to take note, if the quality of dental systematic reviews is to be improved.

Within the limits of the study the authors did observe an encouraging trend — an increase in the number of systematic reviews published in the field of dentistry. It will also be interesting to note whether there is an increase in the quality of these reviews over the next 5 years. The work of the Cochrane Oral Health Group, and the clear guidelines for systematic review in the readily-available QUOROM1 and MOOSE2 statements, should help. I would recommend anyone thinking of conducting a review to look at those guidelines as well as this paper: all provide much useful information.

Practice point

Although the increase in availability of systematic reviews in dentistry is welcome, care needs to be taken to ensure that these reviews are well-conducted and clinically relevant.