- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Poor consideration of publication bias
- Risk of Bias and Methodological Critical Appraisal in Systematic Reviews of Non- and Micro-Invasive Caries Management for Primary and Permanent Teeth
| Ref ID | 1032 |
| First Author | C.M. Laux |
| Journal | CARIES RESEARCH |
| Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
| URL | https://karger.com/cre/article/58/5/469/898537/Risk-of-Bias-and-Methodological-Critical-Appraisal |
| Keywords |
Dentistry Paediatrics Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Poor consideration of publication bias Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review No registered or published protocol |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 39 |
| Summary of Findings | Of the 39 the included reviews, the majority (27, 69.2%) were rated as having critically low methodological quality using AMSTAR 2. Only one study (2.6%) attained a high methodological quality rating. The most prevalent critical domain flaw was the lack of a prospectively registered protocol observed in 33 (84.6%) of the included reviews. In addition, 21 (53.8%) of the included reviews did not comprehensively report assessing the presence and impact of publication bias. Almost half of the reviews did not consider the risk of bias when interpreting their results (48.7%). The ROBIS assessments showed that the majority of reviews (21, 53.8%) were categorised as low risk of bias while reviews were classified as unclear (20.5%) and high (25.6%). |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |