Background. The greatest value of the biomedical literature lies not in individual studies, but in the best available evidence within the entire body of evidence. In many fields, including dentistry, systematic reviews, or SRs, have become the preferred method of analyzing and interpreting large amounts of data toward developing clinical practice guidelines.
Methods. The American Academy of Periodontology, or AAP, formulated clinically relevant, focused questions and developed a protocol for SRs. Reviewers systematically searched online databases and print journals and contacted authors, journal editors and industry experts. For each included study, the reviewers determined the level of evidence and summarized the findings. Centralized management of biostatistics provided consistency. At a structured conference, the reviews were the basis for development of consensus reports that included implications for practice and research.
Results. The SRs provided comprehensive analyses of the best available clinically relevant evidence in key areas of periodontal practice. The reviews also identified knowledge gaps and suggested direction for future studies. The conference focused on translating the findings from the SRs into general consensus statements that described scientific and clinical assessments and implications for research and practice.
Clinical Implications. Consensus statements based on SRs are important linchpins of modern dentistry. They aid in the development of appropriate treatment protocols for specific clinical circumstances. These protocols, in turn, help ensure the integration of clinically relevant scientific evidence with the expertise of individual clinicians, along with the unique characteristics, needs and wants of individual patients.
