- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- 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 reporting quality |
Problem(s) |
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Insufficient literature searches |
Number of systematic reviews included | 127 |
Summary of Findings | Of the 127 reviews were 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? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |