Premium
Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri‐implant diseases with two methodological tools
Author(s) -
Faggion Clovis Mariano,
Monje Alberto,
Wasiak Jason
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/jcpe.12893
Subject(s) - systematic review , checklist , cochrane library , medicine , randomized controlled trial , medline , meta analysis , critical appraisal , alternative medicine , psychology , surgery , pathology , biology , biochemistry , cognitive psychology
Aim This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of two methodological instruments to appraise systematic reviews and to identify potential disagreements of systematic review authors regarding risk of bias (RoB) evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in systematic reviews on peri‐implant diseases. Material/methods We searched Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar for systematic reviews on peri‐implant diseases published before July 11, 2017. Two authors independently evaluated the RoB and methodological quality of the systematic reviews by applying the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist, respectively. We assessed the RoB scores of the same RCTs published in different systematic reviews. Results Of the 32 systematic reviews identified, 23 reviews addressed the clinical topic of peri‐implantitis. A high RoB was detected for most systematic reviews (n=25) using ROBIS, whilst five systematic reviews displayed low methodological quality by AMSTAR. Almost 30% of the RoB comparisons (for the same RCTs) had different RoB ratings across systematic reviews. Conclusions The ROBIS tool appears to provide more conservative results than AMSTAR checklist. Considerable disagreement was found among systematic review authors rating the same RCT included in different systematic reviews.