- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects
- 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 |
Harms Protocols Abstract / summary Dentistry Spin |
| 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 |