TY - JOUR
T1 - "Over-reviewing" of research?
T2 - An analysis of orthodontic reviews
AU - Millett, Declan T.
AU - Benson, Philip E.
AU - Cunningham, Susan J.
AU - McIntyre, Grant T.
AU - Tsichlaki, Aliki
AU - Naini, Farhad B.
AU - Laide, Claire
AU - Fleming, Padhraig S.
N1 - Copyright:
© 2023 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/4
Y1 - 2024/4
N2 - Introduction: Research overviews may be undertaken to identify gaps in the literature, evaluate existing systematic reviews (SRs), and summarize evidence. This paper aims to profile overviews that have been conducted in orthodontics and related interventions since 2012 and to evaluate the degree of overlap among these overviews.Methods: Overviews published between January 1, 2012 and June 20, 2023 were identified using an electronic search involving Google Scholar and PubMed. A descriptive summary was produced, and citation matrices were used to evaluate the percentage of overlap between overviews using corrected covered area and covered area. This was classified as slight, moderate, high, or very high.Results: A total of 35 overviews were identified across a wide range of topics. Eight overviews included <10 SRs; 21 had 10-20 SRs; and 6 included >20 SRs (median no. of SRs per overview, 15; range, 3-62). Meta-analysis was conducted in only 5 overviews. Overlap between overviews on the same topic ranged from slight (2.7%) to very high (53.8%).Conclusions: Almost all overview topics address treatments and their effects, with a wide variation in the number and quality of SRs included. There is considerable overlap in some orthodontic overviews, suggesting unnecessary duplication and research waste. Researchers should be encouraged to focus on primary data collection to add more high-quality data to SRs, which will ultimately enhance the yield from secondary and tertiary orthodontic research.
AB - Introduction: Research overviews may be undertaken to identify gaps in the literature, evaluate existing systematic reviews (SRs), and summarize evidence. This paper aims to profile overviews that have been conducted in orthodontics and related interventions since 2012 and to evaluate the degree of overlap among these overviews.Methods: Overviews published between January 1, 2012 and June 20, 2023 were identified using an electronic search involving Google Scholar and PubMed. A descriptive summary was produced, and citation matrices were used to evaluate the percentage of overlap between overviews using corrected covered area and covered area. This was classified as slight, moderate, high, or very high.Results: A total of 35 overviews were identified across a wide range of topics. Eight overviews included <10 SRs; 21 had 10-20 SRs; and 6 included >20 SRs (median no. of SRs per overview, 15; range, 3-62). Meta-analysis was conducted in only 5 overviews. Overlap between overviews on the same topic ranged from slight (2.7%) to very high (53.8%).Conclusions: Almost all overview topics address treatments and their effects, with a wide variation in the number and quality of SRs included. There is considerable overlap in some orthodontic overviews, suggesting unnecessary duplication and research waste. Researchers should be encouraged to focus on primary data collection to add more high-quality data to SRs, which will ultimately enhance the yield from secondary and tertiary orthodontic research.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.10.013
DO - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.10.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 38149957
SN - 0889-5406
VL - 165
SP - 385-398e.5
JO - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
JF - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
IS - 4
ER -