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
Year Of Publishing 2022
Keywords Harms
Abstract / summary
Problem(s) Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
No registered or published protocol
Number of systematic reviews included 45
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.
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