Systematic reviews on the success of dental implants present low spin of information but may be better reported and interpreted: An overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis

Ref ID 860
First Author C.P. de Lucena Alves
Journal CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY & RELATED RESEARCH
Year Of Publishing 2022
URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13067
Keywords • Protocols
• Harms
• Dentistry
• Abstract / summary
• Spin
Problem(s) • Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects
• Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
• No registered or published protocol
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Brazil
Checklists • PRISMA-A
• SPIN checklist (Yavchitz et al 2016)
Aim To estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews with metanalysis (SRMAs) in implant dentistry.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings From 45 included systematic reviews of implant dentistry on survival, success, or failure rates in humans indexed across three databases from inception to May 2021. There was a low presence of spin in the abstracts as assessed with the SPIN checklist (Yavchitz et al 2016) and full text, except for adverse events, in which 51.1% (in the abstract) failed to mention any adverse event for summarized interventions. In the abstracts there was an incomplete report for most items using the PRISMA-A checklist. In the full text of the systematic reviews, 33.3% did not report a registered protocol.
Number of systematic reviews included 45
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 1568
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description