- Framework of problems / Objective
- Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
- Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics
| Ref ID | 40 |
| First Author | R. Bassani |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30716451/ |
| Keywords |
Transparency Grey literature Dentistry Publication bias Risk of bias |
| Problem(s) |
No quality assessment undertaken or reported Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base Inconclusive or lack of recommendations Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Grey literature excluded Poor consideration of publication bias |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 495 |
| Summary of Findings | Only a small proportion of the 495 included systematic reviews in dentistry (44 (19%)) reported a GRADE assessment of the body of evidence. Most of the systematic reviews (296 (59.8%)) did not note the existence of limitations, whereas the report of limitations at the study and review levels was seen in 95 systematic reviews (19.2%). Further, the incorporation of information with regards to study risk-of-bias/quality/ limitations in the Abstract conclusions section was only seen in 49 systematic reviews (19.5%). The source of funding not was described in 192 (38.8%) of systematic reviews, and 181 (36.6%) reported that the authors had no funding. 308/478 (64.4%) of included reviews noted the reasons for exclusion of studies in a PRISMA-like flow diagram or text/table. However, the number of systematic reviews that did not report reasons for exclusion of full-text articles was also high (158 (33%)). Systematic reviews that reported including grey literature were infrequent (90/491 (18.3%)). More than a third (364 (73.4%)) commented that publication bias was not assessed and just 85 (17.2%) declared that publication bias was assessed. |
| 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 |