| Ref ID | 899 |
| First Author | P. Pauletto |
| Journal | EVIDENCE BASED DENTISTRY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-022-0802-5 |
| Keywords |
• Risk of bias • Low methodological quality • Low reporting quality • Publication bias • Dentistry • Protocols • Non-Cochrane reviews • Pre-specification • Disclosure |
| Problem(s) |
• Poor consideration of publication bias • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • No registered or published protocol |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Brazil |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To critically appraise Systematic Reviews of intervention in dentistry using the 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2' (AMSTAR 2) tool published within one year. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 222 included systematic reviews of interventions in dentistry indexed across Medline/PubMed from September 2019 to September 2020. Most of the systematic reviews showed critically low methodological quality (56.8%). The items least contemplated by the included reviews were about the justification of the study designs included in the review (3.6%) and the report on the sources of funding for the systematic reviews included in this study (9%). Furthermore, 47.8% of the systematic reviews did not report a protocol and 50.9% did not carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 222 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 450 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |