Systematic reviews: knowledge translation?

13 editorial Systematic reviews are reproducible synthesis of the best available evidence to facilitate sounder clinical decisions. From the triad of factors that encompass evidence-based Dentistry — clinician's experience, patient's needs and preferences , available scientific evidence — systematic reviews clearly fit into the latter. What is important to underline is that scientific evidence alone should not direct patient care. Why would any clinician prefer to consider a systematic review instead of any given individual paper? First and utmost because in only one manuscript the synthesis of " everything " published about that specific topic is available. That will avoid the clinician to have to look for, then pay for (in most cases) and finally, summarize, the information provided by innumerable papers. That sounds really enticing. There are some dangers involved in the process. One important one is to blindly accept any systematic review's conclusions. There are individuals like any of us involved in the process that can inadvertently make mistakes. Then there is a chance that not everything written about that specific topic is identified. Sometimes it is claimed that what is published is only the tip of an iceberg and that a lot of pertinent information is not easily retrievable and lays " under the visible water level. " Finally, clinicians need to make a decision about how applicable is the provided information to the specific patients that they are facing their clinical chair. The most important methodological characteristics that any systematic review should have are nicely summarized in the PRISMA guidelines. 1 It is strongly recommended to use them as closely as possible. They provide an easy to follow guide about how and where to report key characteristics of systematic reviews. In summary, the authors should provide a convincing argument that the topic they are presenting warrants a synthesis. If systematic reviews were already published in the area, a sound argument to why a new one is justifiable should be provided. The process should not only clearly explain where and how available evidence was identified, but also how it was selected. Then included papers should be individually criticized about any potential risk of bias through specific validated assessment tools. These processes should be completed at least in duplicate and independently. Meta-analysis should only be executed if available data warrant it, but most importantly because it makes clinical and methodological sense to combine the data. In addition , …