Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Research Methods in Orthodontics pp 127–158Cite as

Meta-analyses and Evidence-Based Orthodontic Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1747 Accesses

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine has been defined by Rosenberg as the process of “systematically finding, appraising and using contemporary research as the basis for clinical practice” [1]. This definition can also be applied to dentistry and, in turn, to orthodontics [2]. According to Bader [3], “Evidence-based Dentistry is not simply a new name for an old practice. The process is designed to answer specific questions, and it includes systematic and qualitative search of all available evidence.”

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rosenberg W, Donald A (1995) Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving. Br Med J 310:1122–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Harrison JE (2003) Clinical trials in orthodontics II: assessment of the quality of reporting of clinical trials published in three orthodontic journals between 1989 and 1998. J Orthod 30:309–315; discussion 297–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bader JD (2003) Is the term “evidence-based” a new name for an old process? First international conference on evidence-based dentistry. Atlanta, 7–9 Nov 2003

    Google Scholar 

  4. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH (1994) Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. J Am Med Assoc 272: 1367–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Greenhalgh T (1997) How to read a paper: the basis of evidence based medicine. British Medical Journal Publishing Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Proffit WR (2000) Contemporary orthodontics. Mosby, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harrison JE (2000) Evidence-based orthodontics – how do I assess the evidence? J Orthod 72:189–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Green SB, Byar DP (1984) Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med 3:361–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Brien K, Craven R (1995) Pitfalls in orthodontic health service research. Br J Orthod 22:353–356

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Glenny AM, Harrison JE (2003) How to interpret the orthodontic literature. J Orthod 30:159–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deeks JD, Sheldon TA (1995) Guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews of effectiveness, 4th edn. York Center for Reviews and Dissemination, York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DC (1995) User’s guide to the medical literature: IX. A method for grading healthcare recommendations. J Am Med Assoc 274:1800–1804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harrison JE, Ashby D, Lennon MA (1996) An analysis of papers published in the British and European journals of Orthodontics. Br J Orthod 23:203–209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Antczac-Bouckoms A (1998) The anatomy of clinical research. Clin Orthod Res 1:75–79

    Google Scholar 

  15. Glass G (1976) Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 5:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ackerman M (2004) Evidence-based orthodontics for the 21st century. J Am Dent Assoc 135:162–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Egger M, Davey Smith G (1997) Meta-analysis: potentials and promise. Br Med J 315:1371–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J 315:629–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Huque MF (1988) Experiences with meta-analysis in NDA submissions. Proc Biopharm Sect Am Stat Assoc 2:28–33

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dickersin K, Berlin JA (1992) Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science. Epidemiol Rev 14:159–176

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kassirer JP (1992) Clinical trials and meta-analysis. What do they do for us? N Engl J Med 327:273–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cooper HM, Rosenthal R (1980) Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull 87:442–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bailar JC (1995) The practice of meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:149–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bailar JC (1997) The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med 337:559–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO (1995) Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:167–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Feinstein AR (1995) Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century. J Clin Epidemiol 48:71–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Slavin RE (1995) Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:9–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Naylor CD (1997) Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. Br Med J 315:617–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Editorial (1997) Meta-analysis under scrutiny. Lancet 350:675

    Google Scholar 

  30. Borzak S, Ridker PM (1995) Discordance between meta-analyses and large-scale randomized, controlled trials. Examples from the management of acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 123:873–877

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wolf FM (1986) Meta-analysis. Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jones DR (1992) Meta-analysis of observational epidemiological studies: a review. J R Soc Med 85:165–168

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cook T, Leviton L (1980) Reviewing the literature: a comparison of traditional methods with meta-analysis. J Pers 48:449–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Green B, Hall J (1984) Quantitative methods for literature review. Ann Rev Psychol 35:37–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Light RJ, Pillemer DB (1984) Summing Up: the science of reviewing research. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  36. Victor N (1995) The challenge of meta-analysis: discussion. Indications and contra-indications for meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:5–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Instructions for preparing structured abstracts (1993) J Am Med Assoc271:162–164

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wilson A, Henry DA (1992) Meta-analysis. Part 2: assessing the quality of published meta-analyses. Med J Aust 156:173–187

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Felson DT (1992) Bias in meta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol 45:885–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337:867–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL (1992) Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. J Am Med Assoc 267:374–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Stern JM, Simes RJ (1997) Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. Br Med J 315:640–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. J Am Med Assoc 263:1385–1389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Angell M (1989) Negative studies. N Engl J Med 321:464–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, Clifton J, Buckingham L, Willan A, McIlroy W, Oxman AD (1993) Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. J Am Med Assoc 269:2749–2753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. West RR (1993) A look at the statistical overview (or meta-analyses). J R Coll Physicians Lond 27:111–115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Villar J, Piaggio G, Carroli G, Donner A (1997) Factors affecting the comparability of meta-analyses and largest trials results in perinatology. J Clin Epidemiol 50:997–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50: 1088–1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, Decullier E, Easterbrook PJ, Von Elm E, Gamble C, Ghersi D, Ioannidis JP, Simes J, Williamson PR (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 3: e3081

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rosenthal R (1979) The ‘file drawer problem’ and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 86: 638–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56: 455–463

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kleinbaum DG (2002) Epidemiologic methods. The “art” in the state of the art. J Clin Epidemiol 55:1196–1200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomized and non-randomized studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52: 377–384

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds JM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17: 1–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Available from:http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/cochrane/handbook.htm

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62: e1–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Review manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration 2011; Available at http://www.ims.cochrane.org/revman.htm

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Glass G, McGraw B, Smith ML (1981) Meta-analysis in social research. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  59. Strube MJ, Hartman DP (1983) Meta-analysis: techniques, applications, and functions. J Consult Clin Psychol 51:14–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Cooper HM (1984) The integrative research review: a social science approach. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  61. Rosenthal R (1984) Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  63. Henry DA, Wilson A (1992) Meta-analysis. Part 1: an assessment of its aims, validity and reliability. Med J Aust 156:173–187

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Walter SD (1995) Methods of reporting statistical results from medical research studies. Am J Epidemiol 141:896–906

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS (1988) An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 318:1728–1733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Horwitz RI (1995) Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials: discussion a clinician’s perspective on meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 48:41–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Higgins J, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21: 1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. L’Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O’Rourke K (1987) Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 107:224–233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Beecher HK (1955) The powerful placebo. J Am Med Assoc 159:1602–1606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Rosenthal R (1968) Experimenter expectancy and the reassuring nature of the null hypothesis decision procedure. Psychol Bull Monogr 70(Suppl):30–47

    Google Scholar 

  71. Rosenthal R (1969) Interpersonal expectations. In: Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL (eds) Artifact in behavioral research. Academic, New York, pp 181–277

    Google Scholar 

  72. Rosenthal R, Rubin DB (1978) Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies. Behav Brain Sci 3:410–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Smith ML, Glass G (1977) Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcomes. Am Psychol 32:752–760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Clagett GP, Reisch JS (1988) Prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgical patients. Results of meta-analysis. Ann Surg 208:227–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P (1985) Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 17:335–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Oldridge NB, Guyatt GH, Fisher ME, Rimm AA (1988) Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: combined experience of randomized clinical trials. J Am Med Assoc 260:945–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Longnecker MP, Berlin JA, Orza MJ, Chalmers TC (1988) A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption in relation to risk of breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc 260:652–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (1988) Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen and of cytotoxic therapy on mortality in early breast cancer. An overview of 61 randomized trials among 28,896 women. N Engl J Med 319:1681–1692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse M (1989) Effective care during pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  80. Greenland S (1987) Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol Rev 9:1–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Office General Accounting (1992) Cross design synthesis: a new strategy for medical effectiveness research. G.A.O., Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  82. Cross design synthesis: a new strategy for studying medical outcomes? (1992) Lancet 340:944–946

    Google Scholar 

  83. Tulloch JFC, Antzack AA, Tuncay OC (1989) Review of clinical research in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 95: 499–504

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Petren S, Bondemark L, Soderfeldt B (2003) A systematic review concerning early orthodontic treatment of unilateral posterior crossbite. Angle Orthod 73:588–596

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Papadopoulos MA (2003) Meta-analysis in evidence-based orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res 6:112–126

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Popowich K, Nebbe B, Major PW (2003) Effect of Herbst treatment on temporomandibular joint morphology: a systematic literature review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 123: 388–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Bergstrand F, Twetman S (2003) Evidence for the efficacy of various methods of treating white-spot lesions after debonding of fixed orthodontic appliances. J Clin Orthod 37:19–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Ren Y, Maltha JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2003) Optimum force magnitude for orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic literature review. Angle Orthod 73:86–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Chen JY, Will LA, Niederman R (2002) Analysis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 122:470–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Kim MR, Graber TM, Viana MA (2002) Orthodontics and temporomandibular disorder: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:438–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Schiffman PH, Tuncay OC (2001) Maxillary expansion: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthod Res 4:86–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Jager A, Braumann B, Kim C, Wahner S (2001) Skeletal and dental effects of maxillary protraction in patients with angle class III malocclusion. A meta-analysis. J Orofac Orthop 62:275–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Nguyen QV, Bezemer PD, Habets L, Prahl-Andersen B (1999) A systematic review of the relationship between overjet size and traumatic dental injuries. Eur J Orthod 21:503–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Kim JH, Viana MA, Graber TM, Omerza FF, BeGole EA (1999) The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 115:675–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Orthlieb JD, Girardeau A, Laplanche O (1998) Occlusion and dysfunction: the paradox of dentofacial orthopedics. Orthod Fr 69:69–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Burke SP, Silveira AM, Goldsmith LJ, Yancey JM, Van Stewart A, Scarfe WC (1998) A meta-analysis of mandibular intercanine width in treatment and post-retention. Angle Orthod 68:53–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Trpkova B, Major P, Prasad N, Nebbe B (1997) Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: a meta analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Miles PG, Vig PS, Weyant RJ, Forrest TD, Rockette HE Jr (1996) Craniofacial structure and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome–a qualitative analysis and meta-analysis of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 109:163–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG (1994) A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 21:33–43

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Tuncay OC, Tulloch JF (1992) Apparatus criticus: methods used to evaluate growth modification in class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 102:531–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Mills JR (1991) The effect of functional appliances on the skeletal pattern. Br J Orthod 18:267–275

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Harrison JE, Ashby D (2004) Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library, vol 1. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wish to thank the publishing houses “Wiley” and “Elsevier,” for granting permission to use various parts of the text and images from the papers entitled “Papadopoulos MA, Gkiaouris I. A critical evaluation of meta-analyses in orthodontics.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:589–599” and “Papadopoulos MA. Meta-analysis in evidence-based orthodontics.Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:112–126,” respectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece

    Moschos A. Papadopoulos

Authors
  1. Moschos A. Papadopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moschos A. Papadopoulos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Dental Medicine, Department of Orthodontics, University of Zurich, Plattenstraße 11, Zurich, 8032, Switzerland

    Theodore Eliades

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Papadopoulos, M.A. (2013). Meta-analyses and Evidence-Based Orthodontic Practice. In: Eliades, T. (eds) Research Methods in Orthodontics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31377-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31377-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31376-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31377-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation