Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Relating to Performance of All-Ceramic Implant Abutments, Frameworks, and Restorations

Ref ID	283
First Author	M. A. Al-Rabab'ah
Journal	JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS
Year Of Publishing	2021
URL	https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/jopr.13206?download=true
Keywords	• Dentistry • Risk of bias • Heterogeneity
Problem(s)	• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Number of systematic reviews included	16
Summary of Findings	The majority of included systematic reviews (15 out of 16) scored critically low on quality with more than one critical flaw when assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Most systematic reviews assessed lacked analysis of the effects of the risk of bias and heterogeneity of the included studies. 11/16 of the assessed systematic reviews failed to fulfil the protocol registration criteria and 5 did not perform an adequate literature search. 11 of the assessed systematic reviews did not satisfy the criteria for a competent risk of bias assessment and hence did not account for the risk of bias in their interpretation. The source of funding of the primary studies (RCTs and NRSIs) investigated in 13 of the SRs was not reported.
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