- 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
|C. M. Faggion Jr
|JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
|Year Of Publishing
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
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?