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 Dentistry
Spin
Risk of bias
Disclosure
Low reporting quality
Single reviewer
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes