Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Recently, the work (Martins et al. 2018) “Evaluation of the efficiency of fluoride-releasing adhesives for preventing secondary caries in vitro: a systematic review and meta-analysis” was published in European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, which examined the efficiency of fluoride-releasing adhesives for preventing secondary caries in vitro. But here we had a question on section of search strategy in this work. The authors reported that three electronic databases were searched, but their report on search strategy may be a mistake. We know that different databases have different index approaches, and there only PubMed database have this search format—“[MeSH Terms]” and “[Title/Abstract]”. However, the authors did not mention that this was a search strategy of PubMed. Therefore, this is not in compliance with (Moher et al. 2009) PRISMA guideline and may confuse new beginners.
References
Martins FV, Vasques WF, Fonseca EM. Evaluation of the efficiency of fluoride-releasing adhesives for preventing secondary caries in vitro: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2018;20:1–8.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lu, C., Liu, M. Letter to “Evaluation of the efficiency of fluoride-releasing adhesives for preventing secondary caries in vitro: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 20, 623 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00460-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00460-6