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 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