Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews

Ref ID	240
First Author	P. H. Sales
Journal	MEDICINA ORAL, PATOLOGIA ORAL Y CIRUGIA BUCAL
Year Of Publishing	2020
URL	https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32520920/
Keywords	• Dentistry • Pre-specification • Risk of bias • Low reporting quality • Publication bias • Protocols • Single reviewer
Problem(s)	• No registered or published protocol • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently • Poor consideration of publication bias • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included	7
Summary of Findings	From 7 systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxillae. Six systematic reviews showed critically low methodological quality and one review was assessed as of low methodological quality using AMSTAR 2.
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