Search

Condylar hyperactivity (CH) is a rare condition that entails a progressive deviation and deformation of the mandible. There is no consensus regarding characteristic histopathological features or a standardized diagnostic process; thus, histopathological analysis of the condyle cannot confirm or exclude an active CH after condylectomy is performed. An electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS and grey literature up to December 2019. Additionally, a manual search was performed. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the Institute of Health Economics Quality Appraisal. All analyses were performed independently and in duplicate. Seventeen articles from 660 were included. Six articles were crosssectional studies and 11 were case series. Almost all the articles (14) described an augmented thickness of the cartilage layer associated with cartilage islands within the subchondral bone in patients affected by CH. Histological findings seem to be mostly related to the age of the sample rather than a characteristic description of CH. No clear association was found between SPECT/scintigram uptake and a specific histological finding. Hence, there is a necessity for the development of specific tools for evaluating and reporting studies where histology is needed for diagnosis confirmation

Objectives: To report systematic review definitions that are published in overviews of reviews and to propose a new classification of systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting: In this review of overviews, we searched PubMed for systematic review definitions that were reported in overviews of reviews that were published in the medical literature between November 2017 and May 2018. Two independent authors extracted and descriptively reported the systematic review definitions from the overviews. The definitions were evaluated regarding whether the concepts of comprehensiveness and reproducibility were incorporated into them, as suggested by some published systematic review definitions. Results: Initially, 138 documents were retrieved, and 111 overviews and protocols of overviews were included. Eight (8%) overviews explicitly reported a systematic review definition, whereas 25 (24%) overviews reported heterogeneous information about the criteria that were used to include systematic reviews in the overviews. Seventy-two (68%) overviews did not report any definition/criteria for including a systematic review. Two (2%) overviews reported a definition based on reproducibility, and none of the overviews reported the need to search for grey and unpublished literature for a review to be considered systematic. Conclusion: Overview authors rarely define systematic reviews that are included in their overviews and the few that do include a definition that provides heterogeneous criteria. 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.