- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies: a cross-sectional study
Ref ID | 1043 |
First Author | M.C. Menne |
Journal | IRISH VETERINARY JOURNAL |
Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
URL | https://irishvetjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13620-023-00261-w |
Keywords |
Dentistry Animal studies Low methodological quality |
Problem(s) |
Single reviewer / lack of double checking Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review |
Number of systematic reviews included | 190 |
Summary of Findings | Using AMSTAR 2 to assess the included systematic reviews, 133 (70.0%) were deemed critically low. The items of particular concern were: 1) lack of explanation of the selection of study designs for inclusion in the review (71.5%), 2) review authors not performing data extraction in duplicate (64.7%), 3) review authors not providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (64.2%), 4) no report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review (98.9%), and 5) no account for the risk of bias in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results. The systematic reviews that were published later, published in a journal with higher impact factor, focused on non-surgery topics and used at least one tool had significantly higher adherence scores. |
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? |