Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Periodontal Regeneration in Humans
Department of Periodontics, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, Iowa City, IA-52242.Journal of Periodontology (Impact Factor: 2.71). 04/2012; 84(2). DOI: 10.1902/jop.2012.120021
Background: Systematic reviews represent the highest form of evidence in the current hierarchy of evidence-based dentistry. Critical analysis of published systematic reviews may help to analyze their strengths and weaknesses and to identify areas that need future improvement. The aim of this overview was to determine and compare the quality of systematic reviews published in the field of periodontal regeneration using established checklists such as the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans. A total of 14 systematic reviews were selected using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of the selected reviews using AMSTAR guidelines. Each article was given an AMSTAR total score, based on the number of AMSTAR criteria that were fulfilled. The quality of included reviews was further assessed using a checklist proposed by Glenny and collaborators in 2003. Results: Only one of the selected systematic reviews satisfied all the AMSTAR guidelines, while on the other end, two reviews satisfied just 2 of the 11 items. This study shows that published systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration exhibit significant structural and methodological variability. Quality assessment using the additional checklist further confirmed the variability in the way systematic reviews were conducted and/or reported. Conclusion: Consideration of guidelines for quality assessment, such as AMSTAR, when designing and conducting systematic reviews may increase the validity and clinical applicability of future reviews.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Critical analysis of published systematic reviews may help in understanding their strengths and weaknesses and identifying areas that need improvement. Short dental implants are becoming an important addition to the existing dental armamentarium. The aim of this overview is to analyze the quality of published systematic reviews focused on short dental implants using established checklists such as the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Methods: A search was conducted to retrieve reviews that used a systematic approach in article selection focusing on short dental implants in humans. Based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 10 reviews were selected. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of the selected reviews using AMSTAR and the checklist proposed by Glenny et al. in 2003. Each article was given a total score based on the number of criteria that it fulfilled. Results: Six reviews satisfied ≤4 of the 11 AMSTAR items, and only two reviews satisfied nine of the 11 items. This study shows that published systematic reviews on short dental implants exhibit significant structural and methodological variability. Quality assessment using the Glenny checklist further confirmed the variability in the way systematic reviews were conducted and/or reported. A high correlation was observed between the two checklists' scores. Conclusions: Uniformity in the way systematic reviews are conducted and/or reported will increase the validity and clinical applicability of future reviews.Journal of Periodontology 08/2012; 84(6). DOI:10.1902/jop.2012.120317 · 2.71 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: /st> The existence of an association between periodontitis and cardiovascular disease has been proposed by investigators in several clinical studies and further confirmed by the results of several systematic reviews. The aim of the authors' study was to assess the quality of published systematic reviews focused on the association between periodontitis and coronary heart disease (CHD) by using established systematic review assessment checklists. /st> Two reviewers conducted a search for systematic reviews focusing on the association between periodontitis and CHD. Three independent reviewers appraised the quality of the selected 13 reviews by using an established and validated assessment tool for systematic reviews and another checklist. They gave each article a total score according to the number of criteria on each checklist that the article fulfilled. /st> Nine reviews satisfied six or more items on the assessment tool, whereas two reviews each satisfied only one item. This assessment shows that published systematic reviews of the periodontitis-CHD association exhibit significant structural and methodological variation, which the authors further confirmed by using the second checklist. /st> Systematic reviews of the association between periodontitis and CHD exhibited significant differences in their methodological quality. Practical Implications Clinicians should be aware that not all systematic reviews of the periodontitis-CHD association are conducted in a rigorous manner and should be capable of differentiating well-conducted reviews from poorly conducted ones.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 04/2013; 144(4):371-9. DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0130 · 2.01 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: and overview. This article describes the different types of reviews of research that are available in the literature: systematic reviews and traditional reviews. Systematic reviews have become the reference standard for evidence to inform clinical practice. In this article, the authors set out guidance on appraising the quality and relevance of systematic reviews to help readers make decisions about their clinical practice. Conclusions: and practical implications. Systematic reviews are of variable quality, although evaluations of reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration generally are of the highest quality. An assessment tool described in this article appears currently to be the most useful tool to guide clinicians to assess systematic reviews and therefore to decide whether the evidence is appropriate to change practice.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 05/2013; 144(5):527-30. DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0155 · 2.01 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.