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	• 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
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes