Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Periodontal Regeneration in Humans
ABSTRACT 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: /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 · 2.24 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Critical analysis of published systematic reviews may help understand their strengths and weaknesses and to identify areas that need future improvement. Short dental implants are becoming an important addition to the existing dental armamentarium. The aim of this overview was 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 utilized 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 and collaborators in 2003. Each article was given a total score, based on the number of criteria that they fulfilled. Results: There were six reviews that satisfied ≤4 of the AMSTAR 11 items. On the other hand only two reviews satisfied 9 of the possible 11 items. This study shows that published systematic reviews on short dental implants 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. A high correlation was observed between the two checklist's scores. Conclusion: 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 · 2.57 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To perform a systematic critical appraisal of the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the effect of a history of periodontitis on dental implant loss. PubMed, the Cochrane database for systematic reviews, the DARE, Biosis Preview, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS electronic databases were searched on 16(th) June 2012, independently and in duplicate, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to dental implants for patients with and without a history of periodontitis. Manual searching of the reference lists of included papers was also conducted. The methodological quality of these systematic reviews was assessed by use of the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR checklists. Before quality assessment was initiated, the reviewers were calibrated until they achieved excellent agreement. Sixty-eight papers were initially retrieved. Of these, nine systematic reviews and three meta-analyses were included. Some domains, for example, "characteristics of the included studies" were satisfied in both checklists. In contrast, domains such as "comprehensive literature search" and "assessment of likelihood of publication bias" were rarely met. Much methodological variability was encountered in the selected reviews. To furnish readers with a more comprehensive assessment of the evidence, authors should observe higher standards when conducting and reporting their reviews.Journal Of Clinical Periodontology 05/2013; 40(5):542-52. DOI:10.1111/jcpe.12096 · 3.61 Impact Factor