- Framework of problems / Rigorous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools
| Ref ID | 1050 |
| First Author | A.G. Pereira |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL & EXPERIMENTAL DENTISTRY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10478201/ |
| Keywords |
• Dentistry • Risk of bias • Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
• Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Insufficient literature searches • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • High risk of bias (ROBIS) |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 127 |
| Summary of Findings | Of the 127 systematic reviews of intervention studies in in the field of periodontology indexed across MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, LILACS with no language restrictions between October 2019 to October 2020 included, the methodological quality was mainly critically low (64.6%) and low (24.4%), using AMSTAR 2 assessments. The items with the highest percentage of overall negative responses were: 1) lack of explanation for the for the selection of study designs (87.4%), 2) no reporting of funding sources for the included studies (67.7%) and 3) lack of a comprehensive literature search (65.4%). The ROBIS assessment showed that 95 (75%) reviews were judged with high risk for domain 1 (study eligibility criteria), 103 (81.1%) for domain 2 (identification and selection of studies), and 46 (36.2%) for domain 3 (data collection and study appraisal). The study also showed that the risk of bias decreased with the increased in the impact factor of the journal. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | N/A |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |