Quality assessment of systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans

Ref ID 289
First Author S. Elangovan
Journal JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2013
URL https://aap.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1902/jop.2012.120021?download=true
Keywords Grey literature
Dentistry
Error
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Disclosure
Low reporting quality
Single reviewer
Problem(s) Grey literature excluded
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Single reviewer / lack of double checking
Poor consideration of publication bias
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently
Number of systematic reviews included 14
Summary of Findings Only one of the selected systematic reviews satisfied all the AMSTAR criteria, whereas two reviews satisfied just two of the 11 items. Problematic criteria included: duplicate screening/ data extraction (64%); consideration of grey literature (50%); table of included and excluded studies (64%); characteristics of included studies described (71%); quality assessment of included studies (71%); appropriate methods for data synthesis (57%); likelihood of publication bias assessment (29%); conflicts of interest stated (57%).
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? No