ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of systemic antibiotic combined with non-surgical periodontal therapy for aggressive periodontitis. MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, CBM, VIP and CNKI databases from inception to January, 2016, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about non-surgical periodontal therapy combined with systemic antibiotics for aggressive periodontitis. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the bias risk of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 8 RCTs involving 236 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed, compared with non-surgical periodontal therapy alone, non-surgical periodontal therapy combined with systemic antibiotics showed a significant additional probing depth reduction at 3-, 6- and 12 months follow-up (MD=0.33, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.41, P<0.00001; MD=0.53, 95%CI 0.44 to 0.62, P<0.00001; MD=0.52, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.81, P=0.0004), and a significant clinical attachment gain at 3-, 6- and 12 months follow-up (MD=0.43, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.56, P<0.00001; MD=0.44, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.55, P<0.00001; MD=0.43, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.65, P=0.0002). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that the treatment of patients with aggressive periodontitis, systemic antibiotic (Metronidazole and Amoxicillin) combined with non-surgical periodontal therapy has a significant additional effect than non-surgical therapy alone. However, because of the limitation of quality and quantity of included studies, the above conclusion still needs to be further proved by conducting more high-quality and large-scale RCTs.
ObjectiveTo carry out a retrospective study of the reporting quality and current situation of the systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) in pediatric field in China, as well as compliance with the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. MethodsSeven core Chinese pediatric journals were hand-searched. Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned data extraction form, crosschecked data, and discussed to solve discrepancy. The PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality respectively, and subgroup analysis was conducted by different total cites and different published time. SPSS 22.0 was used to for statistical analysis. Percentage was used to describe categorical data and Chi-square test was used to compare the difference among groups. ResultsA total of 157 SRs/MA were included. The proportion of SRs/MA related to interventions was the biggest (61.1%, 96 SRs/MA). (1) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions in the PRISMA checklist was better:the coincidence rate of twenty entries was above 50%; (2) The coincidence rate of observational SRs/MA in the MOOSE guidelines was not so good:the coincidence rate of 15 entries was less than 50%, even some of them were less than 20%. There were no significant difference between different total cites (≤5 vs. > 5) in PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. (3) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions had been improved to some extent in most of items after the PRISMA guidelines published, and the differences were statistically significant respectively in No. 8, 19, 20, and 23 (P≤0.05). ConclusionsThe number of SRs/MA published in the pediatric journals in China is increasing generally, the coincidence rate of SRs/MAs related to interventions have been obviously improved after the PRISMA guidelines published, and it's better than the coincidence rate of observational SRs/MAs in MOOSE guidelines. In a word, we should pay more attention to the quality of SRs/MAs, but not just the number.
ObjectiveTo survey the important characteristics, such as the number of time cited, methodological and reporting quality of the systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA) of animal studies published in Chinese journals. MethodsThe CNKI and WanFang Data databases were searched for SR/MA of animal studies published in Chinese journals from inception to March 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted basic characteristic and methodology characteristics of included studies. And then a descriptive analysis was conducted. ResultsA total of 18 studies published in 13 different journals were included. 77.8% studies were not been cited, 44.4% did not report the types of including studies. Besides, there were some certain weaknesses in the methodological quality, for example, over 60% studies did not assess the qualities and publication bias of the including studies, 22.2% SRs/MAs only searched Chinese databases, over 80% studies did not provide flow chart etc. ConclusionThe number of SRs/MAs of animal studies published in Chinese journals is small and the number of times cited is low, and the methodological and reporting quality is poor. So, focusing on improving the quality of SRs/MAs is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.