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?