|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 53
Sonali Vijay Deshmukh
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization; Department of Orthodontics, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India
|Date of Submission||22-Oct-2019|
|Date of Acceptance||22-Oct-2019|
|Date of Web Publication||23-Dec-2019|
Dr. Sonali Vijay Deshmukh
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization; Department of Orthodontics, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Deshmukh SV. Synthesizing Systematically. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ 2019;11:53
The quest of knowing the truth and what works is an eternal journey for all. The smartest is the one who takes the previous evidence and synthesizes it for self-benefit and applies it in practice. In dentistry relying on evidence-based literature has not garnered the speed, but in recent times, lots of publications are creeping up in the journals. Among all the dentists, 90% of full-time clinicians had only heard about evidence-based dentistry (EBD) but had not utilized it in clinical practice and felt need for lengthy discussion with a patient to be the primary barrier to evidence-based practice, while 83.33% of academicians with clinical practice had read through the scientific literature. Transitional views of 79.37% of academicians suggested seeking and applying evidence-based summaries to practice than applying conventional skills in EBD. Moreover, the most common critique against the systematic reviews and meta-analysis is that they provide inconclusive results. However, this has to be taken positively as this inconclusive results opens up the new plethora of clinical research. Moreover, evidence-based clinical outcomes can be used to inform and enhance government policies as well.
Looking at the above statistics one wonders what is the hindrance behind evidence-based literature in dentistry. It can be said it is the apathy toward research as well as poor understanding of the research protocols may be the biggest deterrent. Almost 90% of general practitioners are unaware of meaning of systematic review, meta-analysis, Cochrane review, confidence interval, null hypothesis, forest plot, risk of bias, so on and so forth. Most of the academicians are somewhat aware of the process of systematic review or meta-analysis.
The onus of bringing awareness is on teachers who should be well-versed with the concepts of different study designs For example, what are case reports, case series, case-control series, randomized control trials and finally systematic review and meta-analysis. In this hierarchy of evidence,in vitro studies are at the bottom level. Moreover, the concept of research should be introduced at undergraduate level and has to be strengthened at postgraduate level. To encourage this attitude of research, all the scientific deliberations should include specific slots for research methodologies and discussion on its importance in clinical practice.
The main aim of this quest is to invigorate the moldable minds of students, Teachers as well as clinicians to help the society at large. The change in this thought process starts with YOU!
“Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.”
| References|| |
Kumar JK, Patthi B, Singla A, Gupta R, Prasad M, Dhama K. Knowledge and usage of evidence-based practice among dentists in Modinagar City: A questionnaire based study. J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent 2017;15:170-6. [Full text]
Robinson P, Lowe J. Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Aust N
Z J Public Health 2015;39:103.