Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Do systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in the dental literature, comply with the QUOROM and PRISMA statements?
Author: Al-Ramadhan, Noor
ISNI:       0000 0004 2715 7948
Awarding Body: University of Liverpool
Current Institution: University of Liverpool
Date of Award: 2011
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Restricted access.
Access from Institution:
Background: The QUOROM and PRISMA guidelines were created in an attempt to improve the standard of reporting systematic reviews. At present there are no studies in the dental literature that have assessed the compliance of papers with these two sets of guidelines. Aims: To determine whether the reports of systematic reviews in four dental specialities comply with the QUOROM and PRISMA statements, whether there has been an improvement in standard over time and whether Cochrane reviews differ from other reviews. Design: Retrospective observational study Method: A search of the Cochrane library identified 181 systematic reviews and meta-analyses for inclusion across four dental specialities (orthodontics, periodontics, preventive dentistry and endodontics). Each review was scored using a 63-item checklist developed from the QUOROM guidelines and a 63-item checklist developed from the PRISMA guidelines. Results: The mean QUOROM score for the whole sample was 70.86% (SD 11.36%, 95% CI 69.20%, 70.86%) and the mean PRISMA score for the whole sample was 74.07% (SD 10.48%, 95% CI 72.53%, 75.61%). The mean PRISMA score for Cochrane reviews was 85.19% (SD 5.03%, 95% CI 83.79%, 86.59%) and the mean PRISMA score for non-Cochrane reviews was 69.59% (SD 8.60%, 95% CI 68.09%, 71.09%). This difference was statistically significant (mean difference 15.50% (95% CI 13.58%, 17.62%; p<0.00001). The mean PRISMA score for orthodontic papers was 75.07% (SD 10.36%, 95% CI 72.32%, 77.82%), for periodontic papers it was 74.91% (SD 7.96%, 95% CI 72.80%, 77.03%), for preventive dentistry papers the means score was 71.50% (SD 13.73%, 95% CI 67.22%, 75.78%) and for endodontic papers the mean score was 74.20% (SD 9.37%, 95% CI 70.33%, 78.07%). The differences between these scores was not statistically significant (p = 0.851). There was a weak negative linear relationship between the age of a Cochrane review and its PRISMA score, indicating a small improvement in compliance with the PRISMA guidelines over time. This was statistically significant (p = 0.019). There was also a weak negative linear relationship between the age of a non-Cochrane review and its PRISMA score but this was not statistically significant (p=0.422). The age of a paper, the speciality it belonged to and the type of review (Cochrane versus non-Cochrane) accounted for 46.5% of the variability in the final PRISMA score. Conclusions: The compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the QUOROM and the PRISMA guidelines was highly variable. There were significant differences between the PRISMA scores of non-Cochrane reviews and Cochrane reviews with the latter scoring more highly. There was also a slight increase in the compliance of Cochrane reviews over time, which was statistically significant. Although the speciality of orthodontics had the highest mean PRISMA score, there were no significant differences between the four specialities.
Supervisor: Harrison, Jayne E. ; Pender, Neil Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available
Keywords: R Medicine (General) ; RK Dentistry