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	• 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
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes