Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools

• Alexandre-Godinho Pereira ^[1] ; Carolina-Castro Martins ^[1] ; Julya-Ribeiro Campos ^[1] ; Sandro-Felipe-Santos Faria ^[1] ; Sarah-Queiroz Notaro ^[1] ; Tina Poklepović-Peričić ^[2] ; Lidiane-Cristina-Machado Costa ^[3] ; Fernando-Oliveira Costa ^[1] ; Luís-Otávio-Miranda Cota ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

     Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

     Brasil

     
  2. [2] University of Split

     University of Split

     Croacia

     
  3. [3] School of Dentistry, Newton Paiva University Center, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, ISSN-e 1989-5488, Vol. 15, Nº. 8 (August), 2023, págs. 678-694
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen

  • Systematic reviews of intervention studies are used to support treatment recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of intervention studies in in the field of periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS.

    Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, published between 2019 and 2020, were searched at MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, LILACS with no language restrictions between October 2019 to October 2020. Additionally, grey literature and hand search was performed. Paired independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias through the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.

    One hundred twenty-seven reviews were included. According to AMSTAR 2, the methodological quality was mainly critically low (64.6%) and low (24.4%), followed by moderate (0.8%) and high (10.2%). According to ROBIS, 90.6% were at high risk of bias, followed by 7.1% low, and 2.4% unclear risk of bias. The risk of bias decreased with the increased in the impact factor of the journal.

    Current systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontics were classified as low or critically low methodological quality and high risk of bias. Both tools led to similar conclusions. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines and stricter research practices when conducting systematic reviews are needed.