- Framework of problems / Objective
- Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
- Use of methodological tools for assessing the quality of studies in periodontology and implant dentistry: a systematic review
Ref ID | 629 |
First Author | C. M. Faggion Jr |
Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2014 |
URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24666018/ |
Keywords |
Dentistry |
Problem(s) |
No quality assessment undertaken or reported Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base Single reviewer / lack of double checking Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies |
Number of systematic reviews included | 159 |
Summary of Findings | Only 15 (9%) of the 159 included systematic reviews incorporated the quality of evidence of primary studies into the report. Only 50% of systematic reviews reported independent and duplicate assessment of methodological quality; 69% of systematic reviews reported methodological approaches in the Materials/Methods section. |
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 |