CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS

A adoção da prática clínica, com base em resultados comprovados cientificamente quanto a sua eficácia, utiliza modelos de estudos epidemiológicos com a finalidade de aplicar o conhecimento científico nas decisões em saúde. Com a procura crescente pela eficiência e uma relação adequada entre custo-benefício, há a necessidade de expandir o processo da OBE para todos os aspectos do cuidado odontológico. Isso é particularmente importante em vista do papel de destaque que têm recebido os processos de planejamento e avaliação de ações em saúde. Tanto pacientes quanto serviços de saúde e profissionais sentir-se-ão muito mais seguros ao promover ações e oferecer procedimentos odontológicos que são embasados por evidência, podendo produzir resultados positivos a longo prazo.

Agradecimentos

Esta pesquisa foi financiada pela Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES - Brasil) por meio do Programa de Doutorado no País com Estágio no Exterior – PDEE.

2.7 REFERÊNCIAS

1. Richards D, Lawrence A. Evidence based dentistry. Evid Based Dent 1998;1(1):7-10. 2. Claridge JA, Fabian TC. History and development of evidence-based medicine. World J.

Surg. 2005;29(5):547-53.

3. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Bmj 1996;312(7023):71-2.

4. Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. Medicines for the year 2000. London: Office of Health Economics; 1979. p. 1- 11.

5. Cochrane AL. Foreword. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.

6. Alderson P. The Cochrane Collaboration: an introduction. Evid Based Dent 1998;1(1):25- 6.

48

7. The Cochrane Library. Systematic Reviews by topic. Disponível em: http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/cochrane_clsysrev_subjects_fs.html [Acessado em 5 de junho de 2009]

8. Forrest JL, Miller SA, Newman MG. Introduction to Evidence-Based Decision Making. In: Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA, editors. Carranza's clinical periodontology. 10 ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006. p. 12-21.

9. ADA. ADA policy on evidence-based dentistry. Definition of evidence-based dentistry (EBD). Chicago: American Dental Association; 2008.

10. Ballini A, Capodiferro S, Toia M, Cantore S, Favia G, De Frenza G, et al. Evidence-based dentistry: what's new? Int J Med Sci 2007;4(3):174-8.

11. Anderson M. EB dentistry--a third-party perspective. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2006;6(1):116-8.

12. Nadanovsky P. Odontologia baseada em evidência. In: Luiz RR, Costa AJL. Epidemiologia e bioestatística na pesquisa odontológica. São Paulo: Atheneu; 2005. p. 375-95.

13. Richards D. Which journals should you read to keep up to date? Evid Based Dent 1998;1(1):22-5.

14. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 3 ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2005.

15. Koepsell TD, Weiss NS. Epidemiologic methods: studying the occurrence of illness. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.

16. Hujoel PP. Assessing evidence. In: Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Carranza's clinical periodontology. 10 ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006. p. 22-35.

17. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane manual. Oxford: Cochrane; 2008. Disponível em: http://209.211.250.105/admin/1Manual_4_2008.pdf [Acessado em 25 de maio de 2009]

18. Coutinho E. Revisão sistemática e meta-análise em odontologia. In: Luiz RR, Costa AJL, Nadanovsky P. Epidemiologia e bioestatística na pesquisa odontológica. São Paulo: Atheneu; 2005. p. 397-403.

19. Khan KS, Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking Systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD report number 4. 2 ed. York: York Publishing Services; 2001.

20. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta- analyses. Bmj 2003;327(7414):557-60.

21. Armitage P. Statistical methods in medical research. 4 ed. Malden: Blackwell Science; 2001.

22. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. Bmj 1998;316(7124):61-6. 23. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. Bmj

1997;315(7121):1533-7.

24. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta- analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48(1):167-71.

25. Olkin I. Statistical and theoretical considerations in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48(1):133-46; discussion 47.

26. MEDLINE/PubMed. Mesh Database. Meta-analysis as Topic. Disponível em http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=mesh&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSe arch=68015201&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Mesh.Mesh_ResultsPanel. Mesh_RVDocSum [Acessado em 5 de junho de 2009]

27. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. : The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. Disponível em: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/ [Acessado em 25 de maio de 2009]

28. R Richards D. Protocol-driven search strategies and systematic reviews of complex evidence. Evid Based Dent 2006;7(1):19.

29. Salant P, Dillman DA. How to conduct your own survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.

30. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Bmj 2001;323(7303):42-6.

31. Lawrence A. Building up the Quality process. Evid Based Dent 1999;1(2):2.

32. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51(12):1235- 41.

50

33. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17(1):1-12.

34. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 2003;83(8):713-21. 35. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting

Trials). The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2001;91(8):437-42. 36. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of

observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Jama 2000;283(15):2008-12. 37. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-

Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta- analyses. Ottawa: Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa. Disponível em: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/ oxford.htm [Acessado em 9 de março de 2007]

38. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. Assessment of study quality and risk of bias. : The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. Disponível em: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/ [Acessado em 5 de junho de 2009]

39. Wolf FM. Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills CA: Sage; 1986.

40. Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. Bmj 1998;316(7125):140-4.

41. Rouquayrol MZ. Epidemiologia & Saúde. 6 ed. Rio de Janeiro: MEDSI; 2003.

42. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7(3):177- 88.

43. Rosner BA. Fundamentals of biostatistics. Belmont, London: Duxbury Press; 1995.

44. L'Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987;107(2):224-33.

45. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Health Technol Assess 1998;2(19):1-276.

46. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21(11):1539-58.

47. Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis. Stat Med 1995;14(4):395-411..

48. Rosenthal R. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 1979;86:638-41.

49. Biljana M, Jelena M, Branislav J, Milorad R. Bias in meta-analysis and funnel plot asymmetry. Stud Health Technol Inform 1999;68:323-8.

50. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50(4):1088-101.

51. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj 1997;315(7109):629-34.

52. Sutton AJ, Song F, Gilbody SM, Abrams KR. Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review. Stat Methods Med Res 2000;9(5):421-45.

53. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Jama 2006;295(6):676-80.

54. Orwin RG. A fail-safe-N for the effect size. J Educ Stat 1983;8(2):157-9.

55. Newton T. Qualitative research and evidence-based dentistry: linking evidence to practice. Evid Based Dent 2000;2(4):104-6.

56. Clarkson J, Worthington H, Chalmers I. Reducing harm and maximizing benefit. Evid Based Dent 1999;1(2):4-5.

- $

FÓRMULA INFAN