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? N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes