- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodonticārelated systematic reviews
Ref ID | 285 |
First Author | T. Aziz |
Journal | JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION |
Year Of Publishing | 2013 |
URL | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/joor.12028?download=true |
Keywords |
Grey literature Dentistry Error Publication bias Risk of bias Disclosure Low reporting quality Searching Single reviewer |
Problem(s) |
Grey literature excluded Poor consideration of publication bias Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing No quality assessment undertaken or reported Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Insufficient literature searches Single reviewer / lack of double checking Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis |
Number of systematic reviews included | 128 |
Summary of Findings | The overall methodological quality of prosthodontics-related systematic reviews was limited. Publication bias assessed in 6% of reviews; grey literature was included in in 21% of reviews; quality assessment was incorporated into 31% of review conclusions; conflicts of interest were stated in 34% of reviews; quality assessment was performed/reported in 38% of reviews; a list of excluded studies was provided in 49% of reviews; appropriate methods for data synthesis were used in 51% of reviews; a comprehensive literature search was performed in 52% of reviews; duplicate study selection and data extraction were performed in 59% of reviews. |
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 |