Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Ref ID	231
First Author	S. Papageorgiou
Journal	ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH
Year Of Publishing	2011
URL	https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21771267/
Keywords	Grey literature Dentistry Statistical Expertise Publication bias Risk of bias Low reporting quality Searching 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
Number of systematic reviews included	110
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.
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?	Yes