Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic‐related 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 • Risk of bias
• Searching
• Low reporting quality
• Publication bias
• Error
• Grey literature
• Disclosure
• Single reviewer
• Dentistry
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
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Canada
Checklists • AMSTAR 1
Aim To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR) and key descriptive characteristics of systematic reviews published in prosthodontics across several databases between 1980 and 2011.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
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.
Number of systematic reviews included 128
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 306
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description