| Ref ID | 231 |
| First Author | S. Papageorgiou |
| Journal | ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH |
| Year Of Publishing | 2011 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21771267/ |
| Keywords |
• Expertise • Dentistry • Publication bias • Statistical • Grey literature • Low reporting quality • Searching • Risk of bias • Single reviewer |
| Problem(s) |
• Insufficient literature searches • Grey literature excluded • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Poor consideration of publication bias • Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Greece |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 1 |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR) and other characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics indexed up until 2010. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | 27.3% of the 110 included systematic reviews in orthodontics were found to be of low quality, 57.3% of medium quality, and 15.5% of high quality. Publication in the Cochrane Library was associated with a 17.7% (95% CI: 9.0–26.4%) increase in AMSTAR score. Usage of a forest plot was associated with increased quality score by 10.5% (95% CI: 2.6– 18.5%). The involvement of statistician or epidemiologist, usually acknowledged for error-checking the statistical analyses, was associated with a net score increase of 8.6% (95% CI: 1.8–15.5%). Corresponding AMSTAR score seemed to increase by 2.5% (95% CI: 0.6–4.4%) for every additional author. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 110 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 818 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |