Exploring the relationship between the number of systematic reviews and quality of evidence: an orthognathic surgery-based study

Ref ID 1018
First Author R. Grillo
Journal ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY & ORAL RADIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2024
URL https://www-sciencedirect-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S2212440323005655?via%3Dihub
Keywords • Surgery
• Dentistry
• Certainty
• Non-Cochrane reviews
• Overlapping reviews/redundancy
Problem(s) • Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
• Grey literature excluded
• Language restriction
• Insufficient literature searches
• Poor execution of narrative synthesis
• Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
• Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Brazil
Checklists • PRISMA 2009
• GRADE
Aim To analyse the quality and quantity of systematic reviews (SRs) of orthognathic surgery.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings from 171 included systematic reviews identified through PubMed with no restriction on the language of publication date. Of the 171 SRs evaluated using PRISMA and GRADE, approximately one fifth presented evidence with a high level of certainty. Grey literature was searched in 54 SRs (46.1%) and 55% stipulated English-language studies only. The number of databases searched ranged from 1 to 7 and the number was not reported in 4 SRs. The authors found that the primary research question was not completely answered large number of SRs, due to 1) lack of well-designed and well-controlled studies 2) the publication of SRs with only moderate certainty of evidence, and 3) the lack of a universal protocol. The findings were only discussed generally, and the primary outcome was not adequately addressed in 5 SRs (2.9%). Only 45.61% of SRs reported evidence that can assist in clinical decision-making, and only 22.80% presented evidence with a high level of certainty according to the GRADE. Duplicate publications of very similar topics already covered in the literature were found in 48 SRs and fewer than 10 studies were examined in 71 SRs (41.52%).
Number of systematic reviews included 171
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 185
Treatment impacted Not Applicable
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description