Premium
Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic‐related systematic reviews
Author(s) -
Aziz T.,
Compton S.,
Nassar U.,
Matthews D.,
Ansari K.,
FloresMir C.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/joor.12028
Subject(s) - descriptive statistics , checklist , quality (philosophy) , medical education , systematic review , specialty , medline , descriptive research , publishing , medicine , psychology , family medicine , dentistry , statistics , political science , mathematics , philosophy , epistemology , cognitive psychology , law
Summary Ideally, healthcare systematic reviews ( SR s) should be beneficial to practicing professionals in making evidence‐based clinical decisions. However, the conclusions drawn from SR s are directly related to the quality of the SR and of the included studies. The aim was to investigate the methodological quality and key descriptive characteristics of SR s published in prosthodontics. Methodological quality was analysed using the A ssessment of M ultiple R eviews ( AMSTAR ) tool. Several electronic resources ( MEDLINE , EMBASE , W eb of S cience and A merican D ental A ssociation's E vidence‐based D entistry website) were searched. In total 106 SR s were located. Key descriptive characteristics and methodological quality features were gathered and assessed, and descriptive and inferential statistical testing performed. Most SR s in this sample originated from the European continent followed by North America. Two to five authors conducted most SR s; the majority was affiliated with academic institutions and had prior experience publishing SR s. The majority of SR s were published in specialty dentistry journals, with implant or implant‐related topics, the primary topics of interest for most. According to AMSTAR , most quality aspects were adequately fulfilled by less than half of the reviews. Publication bias and grey literature searches were the most poorly adhered components. Overall, the methodological quality of the prosthodontic‐related systematic was deemed limited. Future recommendations would include authors to have prior training in conducting SR s and for journals to include a universal checklist that should be adhered to address all key characteristics of an unbiased SR process.