The methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry

Ref ID 631
First Author C. M. Faggion Jr
Year Of Publishing 2012
Keywords Grey literature
Animal studies
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Grey literature excluded
Poor execution of narrative synthesis
Poor consideration of publication bias
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Following guidelines is no guarantee of a rigorous systematic review
Number of systematic reviews included 54
Summary of Findings Only two included reviews were regarded as high quality.
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