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
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Germany
Checklists • AMSTAR 1
• ROBIS
Aim To appraise systematic reviews and to identify potential disagreements of systematic review authors regarding risk of bias evaluations of RCTs included in systematic reviews on peri-implant diseases using ROBIS and AMSTAR
Level of Investigation Descriptive
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
Number of systematic reviews included 23
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 32
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description