Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention in dentistry published between 2019-2020 using the AMSTAR 2 tool

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 Protocols
Dentistry
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Pre-specification
Disclosure
Low reporting quality
Non-Cochrane reviews
Low methodological quality
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
Number of systematic reviews included 222
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.
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