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