CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and Education

Systematic review in diagnostic radiology

MacDonald-Jankowski, D S, Dozier, M F·2001·Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
DOI 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600586
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Systematic review (SR) already makes a major contribution to evidence-based healthcare by making the review process transparent and by reducing bias. SR has been successfully applied to observational studies. Radiologists have already begun to make an impact in dentistry by using SR as a decision-making tool. Central to SR is establishment of a research question, selection criteria, a search plan, a literature search, an appraisal of the identified literature by the selection criteria; an analysis and a formulation of recommendations. With regard to the literature search, electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Lilacs), controlled subject headings, exploding and free-text searching, handsearching and the gray literature are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600586

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Five articles gave recommendations about how to assess eligibility: it should be blind, independent, and performed by two reviewers.

    “Five articles gave recommendations about how to assess eligibility: it should be blind [29, 30, 46], independent [29, 33, 46, 48], and performed by two reviewers [29, 30, 33, 48].”

    From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [46]

  • The majority of articles discussed aspects general to systematic reviews including advantages and limitations of different literature sources and databases, search tools, the importance of identifying unpublished studies, literature searching techniques including how to build a search string and reporting.

    “The majority of articles discussed aspects general to systematic reviews including advantages and limitations of different literature sources and databases, search tools, the importance of identifying unpublished studies, literature searching techniques including how to build a search string and reporting [12, 29, 33–36, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 59–62, 67, 68].”

    From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [46]

  • Twenty (22%) articles reported on item "publication bias", with publication dates between 1994 and 2012 (median year 2001).

    “Twenty (22%) articles reported on item “publication bias” [16, 29, 33, 34, 36, 46, 48–50, 55, 56, 61, 70, 78, 85, 95–99], with publication dates between 1994 and 2012 (median year of publication 2001).”

    From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [46]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
MacDonald-Jankowski, D. S., & Dozier, M. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Bergen (NO)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
ORCID
Dozier, M F
Venue
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2001
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
78-83
ISSN
0250-832X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600586
OpenAlex
W2094215341
Cited by
18
References
24
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
systematic reviews, diagnostic radiology, evidence-based care, literature search strategies, online databases, grey literature, research question formulation, literature appraisal
MeSH terms
Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Radiography, Dental, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval, Patient Selection, Dental Research, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review