| 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 |
• Paediatrics • Low methodological quality • Dentistry • Non-Cochrane reviews • Publication bias • Protocols |
| Problem(s) |
• Poor consideration of publication bias • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • No registered or published protocol • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Brazil |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 • ROBIS |
| Aim | To systematically investigate and evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias in systematic reviews (SRs) indexed in 5 electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, up to March 2023, related to non- and micro-invasive treatment options for caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth in children and adolescents. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 39 systematic reviews (SRs) indexed in 5 electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, up to March 2023. 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%). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 39 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 502 |
| Treatment impacted | Not Applicable |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |