How is the quality of the available evidence on molar-incisor hypomineralization treatment? An overview of systematic reviews

Ref ID 867
First Author M.V. Gevert
Journal CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Year Of Publishing 2022
URL https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00784-022-04612-9
Keywords Protocols
Dentistry
Heterogeneity
Risk of bias
Disclosure
Searching
Low methodological quality
Single reviewer
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Insufficient literature searches
Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
Number of systematic reviews included 5
Summary of Findings From 5 included systematic reviews on treatments for molar-incisor hypomineralization indexed across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Brazilian Bibliography of Dentistry and Cochrane Library up to March 2022. Three Systematic Reviews were rated as showing critically low methodological quality and high risk of bias. Only two systematic reviews registered a protocol, or made available lists of excluded studies and the reasons for exclusion. None of the studies reported the sources of financing of included studies and four of the five did not have a satisfactory explanation for the heterogeneity found. Four did not conduct a comprehensive search.
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