Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: systematic reviews (SRs) are considered to be the highest-quality evidence available, and important tools in healthcare decision making, and have been gaining in popularity over the last few years. They are considered to be secondary research because they collect and analyze data from primary research. Some graduate programs have banned this design, as it is not based on empirical study. Although it is not an innovative method, studies have demonstrated that this type of study should be accepted as the basis of master and PhD thesis because of its advantages in different fields, including economics.
Objectives: the aim of the study was to evaluate whether a master and PhD thesis in the Brazilian Graduate Programs in dentistry could be based on a SR.
Methods: in this cross-sectional study, we surveyed the coordinators of Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry using a self-applied questionnaire that included questions about whether a SR meets requirements for approval of a master or PhD thesis, instructions to use a SR as the basis for a master or PhD thesis, and reasons and barriers that SRs are not recognized as the basis for a master or PhD thesis. We analyzed the responses descriptively, and created tables and graphs to summarize the data.
Results: from the 101 graduate programs invited to participate in the study, 38 (37.6%) returned the questionnaire. Most programs (n = 30; 78.1%) answered that SRs can, in whole or in part, meet the criteria for a master or PhD thesis. Most programs answered that a master and PhD thesis can be exclusively based on a SR (n = 28; 73.7%).
Conclusions: the study can conclude that SRs are well accepted in masters or PhD theses by Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry. Educational initiatives should be encouraged to promote better SRs and a higher acceptance among graduate programs worldwide.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: this highlighted the importance of SR inclusion in high academic degrees, to allow associations and academies to provide the best evidence for patient treatment.
Objectives: the aim of the study was to evaluate whether a master and PhD thesis in the Brazilian Graduate Programs in dentistry could be based on a SR.
Methods: in this cross-sectional study, we surveyed the coordinators of Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry using a self-applied questionnaire that included questions about whether a SR meets requirements for approval of a master or PhD thesis, instructions to use a SR as the basis for a master or PhD thesis, and reasons and barriers that SRs are not recognized as the basis for a master or PhD thesis. We analyzed the responses descriptively, and created tables and graphs to summarize the data.
Results: from the 101 graduate programs invited to participate in the study, 38 (37.6%) returned the questionnaire. Most programs (n = 30; 78.1%) answered that SRs can, in whole or in part, meet the criteria for a master or PhD thesis. Most programs answered that a master and PhD thesis can be exclusively based on a SR (n = 28; 73.7%).
Conclusions: the study can conclude that SRs are well accepted in masters or PhD theses by Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry. Educational initiatives should be encouraged to promote better SRs and a higher acceptance among graduate programs worldwide.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: this highlighted the importance of SR inclusion in high academic degrees, to allow associations and academies to provide the best evidence for patient treatment.
PDF