Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri-implant diseases with two methodological tools

Ref ID 630
First Author C. M. Faggion
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcpe.12893
Keywords • Spin
• Disclosure
• Single reviewer
• Low reporting quality
• Dentistry
• Risk of bias
Problem(s) • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
• High risk of bias (ROBIS)
• Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
• Flawed risk of bias undertaken
• Single reviewer / lack of double checking
• Spin or subjective interpretation of findings
Number of systematic reviews included 23
Summary of Findings High risk of bias was detected for most systematic reviews (n=25) using ROBIS, whilst five systematic reviews displayed low methodological quality by AMSTAR. Almost 30% of the RoB comparisons (for the same RCTs) had different RoB ratings across systematic reviews
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