Hammel, Christopher; Pandis, Nikolaos; Pieper, Dawid; Faggion, Clovis Mariano (2022). Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies. BMC Medical research methodology, 22(1), p. 110. BioMed Central 10.1186/s12874-022-01575-z
|
Text
s12874-022-01575-z.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (1MB) | Preview |
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews of in-vitro studies, like any other study, can be of heterogeneous quality. The present study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies.
METHODS
We searched for systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases published up to January 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the systematic reviews using a modified "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR-2) instrument. The 16 items, in the form of questions, were answered with yes, no, or py (partial yes). Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to examine the association between systematic review characteristics and AMSTAR-2 percent score. Overall confidence in the results of the systematic reviews was rated, based on weaknesses identified in critical and non-critical AMSTAR-2 items.
RESULTS
The search retrieved 908 potential documents, and after following the eligibility criteria, 185 systematic reviews were included. The most researched topics were ceramics and dental bonding. The overall rating for the confidence in the results was critically low in 126 (68%) systematic reviews. There was high variability in the response among the AMSTAR-2 items (0% to 75% positively answered). The univariable analyses indicated dental specialty (p = 0.03), number of authors (coef: 1.87, 95% CI: 0.26, 3.47, p = 0.02), and year of publication (coef: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.90, 3.38, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with the AMSTAR-2 percent score. Whereas, in the multivariable analysis only specialty (p = 0.01) and year of publication (coef: 2.60, 95% CI: 1.84, 3.35, p < 0.001) remained significant. Among specialties, endodontics achieved the highest AMSTAR-2 percent score.
CONCLUSIONS
The methods of systematic reviews of in vitro dental studies were suboptimal. Year of publication and dental specialty were associated with AMSTAR-2 scores. The overall rating of the confidence in the results was low and critically low for most systematic reviews.
Item Type: |
Journal Article (Original Article) |
|---|---|
Division/Institute: |
04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Orthodontics |
UniBE Contributor: |
Pandis, Nikolaos |
Subjects: |
600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health |
ISSN: |
1471-2288 |
Publisher: |
BioMed Central |
Language: |
English |
Submitter: |
Pubmed Import |
Date Deposited: |
14 Apr 2022 09:15 |
Last Modified: |
05 Dec 2022 16:18 |
Publisher DOI: |
10.1186/s12874-022-01575-z |
PubMed ID: |
35413840 |
Uncontrolled Keywords: |
AMSTAR-2 In-vitro Methodological study Methodology Methods Systematic reviews |
BORIS DOI: |
10.48350/169311 |
URI: |
https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/169311 |
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit item |