| Ref ID | 848 |
| First Author | M.H.R Borges |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391321005916 |
| Keywords |
• Protocols • Dentistry • Searching • Low methodological quality • Single reviewer • Disclosure • Pre-specification |
| Problem(s) |
• Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • No registered or published protocol • Insufficient literature searches • Single reviewer / lack of double checking |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Brazil |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality and summarize the scientific evidence from secondary studies about the influence of occlusal schemes on the clinical performance of and patient satisfaction with complete dentures. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 10 systematic reviews of the influence of occlusal schemes on the clinical performance of and patient satisfaction with complete dentures published up to April 1 2021 (databases searched not reported). Nine out of the 10 included systematic reviews were classified as of low or critically low methodological quality (AMSTAR 2). Only 2 had a written review protocol and most of the reviews did not conduct a comprehensive search and failed to explain the design of the included studies. Study selection and data extraction were not conducted (or not reported to have been conducted) in duplicate in 4 and 7 reviews respectively. Six reviews did not provide a list of potentially eligible studies that were excluded and the reasons for exclusion, and 5 reviews did not describe the included studies in adequate or partially adequate detail. Nine reviews did not provide information on sources of funding of the primary studies. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 10 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 159 |