A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in endodontics.
ABSTRACT Meta-analyses have been suggested to be the highest form of evidence available to clinicians to guide clinical practice in dental care. High methodologic quality is a prerequisite for valid interpretation and application of review findings. However, meta-analyses are complex exercises, and assessing quality can be a daunting task. Clinicians and policymakers require guidance, which is not provided adequately by the available literature on the quality of meta-analyses. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of meta-analyses that address topics pertinent to endodontics.
To identify potentially eligible meta-analyses for inclusion, systematic searches performed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were enriched by hand searches, citation mining, and expert recommendation. Comprehensive search strategies were constructed for electronic searches. Predetermined inclusion criteria were applied to each identified meta-analysis independently by two reviewers. To assess report quality, the included meta-analyses were assessed by using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).
A total of 16 reports of meta-analyses were included (kappa = 0.96). The overall quality of reports of meta-analyses was found to be high, with an estimated mean overall AMSTAR score of 8.33 out of 11 (95% confidence interval, 7.62-8.88). The weakest areas within the included meta-analyses were failure to report the likelihood of publication bias.
The overall quality of the reports of meta-analyses available in endodontics is high according to AMSTAR.
- SourceAvailable from: Steffen Mickenautsch[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: REVIEW AIM: The aim of this systematic review is to appraise the quality of existing reviews in the English dental literature in regard to general review methodology, as well as specifically to the comparison method applied, during the last 20 years concerning the compared longevity of different types of direct restorations placed in permanent posterior teeth and subsequently the validity of such reviews' conclusions.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A lot of systematic reviews/meta-analyses compiled by Chinese professionals and published in Chinese medical journals bring a lot of perplexity as they help to a certain extent to make decision in some conflicting clinical results. This study aims to assess the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on antidepressant therapy published in Chinese journals. The reviews/meta-analyses on antidepressant therapy were identified by searching three main Chinese data banks i.e., Chinese National Knowledge,Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data (WF) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). A pre-stated criterion was used for review/meta-analysis selection. All reviews were evaluated by two reviewers separately. Data in qualified reviews were extracted into a Microsoft Excel database for analysis. Two assessment tools were used: (1) the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) and (2) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Sixty eight reviews/meta-analyses were included in this study. More than 50% of them had methodological and reporting defects which could have reduced the reliability of the review/meta-analysis results. The flaws were mainly low quality of search strategy, inappropriate bias control and absence of quality assessment for original study.International Journal of Pharmacology 07/2012; 8(7):614-620. DOI:10.3923/ijp.2012.614.620 · 0.98 Impact Factor