Play all audios:
With the launch of our new format for UK members of the British Dental Association, in which the journal is integral to the _British Dental Journal_, it is worth revisiting how we obtain the
core content of _Evidence-based Dentistry_. _EBD_ Editors regularly search Medline, using a number of standard search strategies (see example, Table 1). As of June 2009, Medline lists 35
938 journals, of which 5376 are currently indexed. This includes 165 dental journals, from _Acta Odontológica Latinoamericana_ to _Zhonghua kou qiang yi xue za zhi_ (_Chinese Journal of
Stomatology)_. The focus of our searches is systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials, although other study designs (such as cohort and case–control studies) are also considered.
Identified studies are assessed for inclusion in the journal based on their methodology and their relevance for practitioners. The number of potential dental systematic review articles have
increased by about 44% since _EBD_ was first launched in 1998 (Table 1). Many of the reviews identified by this search strategy, however, will not be systematic reviews and, of those, many
are not conducted to the high standards recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Consequently _EBD_ adopts a more pragmatic and inclusive approach to the selection of systematic reviews
for the journal. Randomised controlled trials and other study designs are also assessed on methodology and relevance to practitioner. Once a paper has been identified and selected, a
structured abstract is prepared using a standard structure by our team of abstractors. Following this, we then identify a reviewer to prepare a commentary on the review. We invite the
reviewer to address some of the major points (good or bad) of the article in a constructive manner, putting it into the context of other relevant literature in the field. We also ask
reviewers to identify the relevance for the general practitioner and to identify a maximum of two key practice points that we could include as bullet points at the end of the commentary. The
idea behind these commentaries is to bring to practitioners' attention the good-quality information that might pass them by. Our new format provides the full reference and contact
details of the original authors of the papers for which we prepare commentaries, at the top of the page. We encourage readers whose interest is sparked by our commentaries to seek out the
original paper to see if their view of it concords with our reviewer's. If you would like to raise issues about the commentary itself we also encourage you to write to the journal: we
do consider correspondence for publication on our letters page. In addition to the commentaries on published papers, which are the core content of the EBD, we also welcome original
submissions related to the practice of evidence-based dentistry, DEBTS (Dental Evidence-based Topics)1 and Toolbox articles. REFERENCES * Richards D . Creating a DEBT. _Evid Based Dent_
2007; 8: 35–36. Article Google Scholar Download references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Editor, Evidence-based Dentistry, Derek Richards Authors * Derek Richards View
author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Richards, D. New readers
start here. _Evid Based Dent_ 10, 34 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400640 Download citation * Published: 24 June 2009 * Issue Date: June 2009 * DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400640 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not
currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative