Premium
Critical appraisal of methodological quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis in Paediatric Dentistry journals
Author(s) -
Jayaraman Jayakumar,
Nagendrababu Venkateshbabu,
Pulikkotil Shaju Jacob,
Innes Nicola P.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
international journal of paediatric dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.183
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1365-263X
pISSN - 0960-7439
DOI - 10.1111/ipd.12414
Subject(s) - medicine , scopus , systematic review , critical appraisal , meta analysis , test (biology) , medline , quality assessment , dentistry , quality (philosophy) , family medicine , alternative medicine , pathology , external quality assessment , paleontology , philosophy , epistemology , political science , law , biology
Objective To systematically assess the methodological quality of Systematic Reviews ( SR s) and Meta‐Analyses ( MA ) published in Paediatric Dentistry journals and to analyse the relationship between the authors, journals, country, review topic, and the year of publication to the methodological quality of SR s and MA . Design Paediatric Dentistry journals ranked in the top five of the h5 index of Google Scholar Metrics were selected. SR s with MA were searched independently by two reviewers using PubMed and Scopus databases until December 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews ( AMSTAR ) tool. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 and Mann‐Whitney U test and Kruskal‐Wallis test was employed for comparing the AMSTAR score with the journal characteristics. Results Finally, 24 SR s with MA were included. The overall AMSTAR score of SR s and MA published in paediatric dentistry journals was 7.08 ± 2.41. No statistically significant differences were found between the country, journal or focus of study to the quality of SR s except the number of authors and the year of publication ( P < 0.05). Conclusions The quality of SR s and MA in leading Paediatric Dentistry journals were evaluated with AMSTAR tool and areas where quality could be improved were identified.