- Framework of problems / Objective
- High risk of bias (ROBIS)
- 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 |