Beyond the hype: a critical appraisal of the limitations and misconceptions of systematic reviews in the oral pathology and medicine field
| dc.creator | Nathália Sernizon Guimarães | |
| dc.creator | Peter Brennan | |
| dc.creator | Ricardo Santiago Gomez | |
| dc.creator | Roberta Rayra Martins Chaves | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-12-03T20:01:44Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-09-08T23:48:04Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-12-03T20:01:44Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
| dc.format.mimetype | ||
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1111/jop.13456 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1600-0714 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1843/78433 | |
| dc.language | eng | |
| dc.publisher | Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine | |
| dc.rights | Acesso Restrito | |
| dc.subject | Oral medicine | |
| dc.subject | Pathology, oral | |
| dc.subject | Peer review | |
| dc.subject | Review | |
| dc.subject | Systematic review | |
| dc.subject | Methodology as a subject | |
| dc.subject.other | Oral medicine | |
| dc.subject.other | Oral pathology | |
| dc.subject.other | review | |
| dc.subject.other | Systematic review | |
| dc.subject.other | Peer review | |
| dc.title | Beyond the hype: a critical appraisal of the limitations and misconceptions of systematic reviews in the oral pathology and medicine field | |
| dc.type | Artigo de periódico | |
| local.citation.epage | 566 | |
| local.citation.issue | 6 | |
| local.citation.spage | 564 | |
| local.citation.volume | 52 | |
| local.description.resumo | Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) have become a popular approach for evidence-based practice, being considered a lens through which evidence is viewed and applied. However, several published studies have been identified as scoping reviews rather than SRs. This methodological error can negatively impact clinical decision-making or new research conceptualization. Aim: This letter focuses on the increasing number of SRs in oral pathology and medicine, highlighting the most frequent methodological mistakes. Results: We providing general guidance to help researchers conceptualize better their SRs and for the critical evaluation of SRs by scientific journal reviewers. Conclusion: Clinicians, pathologists, and reviewers, must ensure the quality of the published information. | |
| local.identifier.orcid | https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4804-3264 | |
| local.identifier.orcid | https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8770-8009 | |
| local.identifier.orcid | https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6182-9232 | |
| local.publisher.country | Brasil | |
| local.publisher.department | FAO - DEPARTAMENTO DE CLÍNICA | |
| local.publisher.initials | UFMG | |
| local.url.externa | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jop.13456 |
Arquivos
Licença do pacote
1 - 1 de 1