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
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes