Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26589200›Full record

ReviewClinical oral investigations2016

Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health.

J Wasiak, A Y Shen, H B Tan, R Mahar, G Kan, W R Khoo, C M Faggion

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical oral investigations, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Lingual Frenotomy in Breastfeeding Infants: An Umbrella Review.International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

J WasiakEpworth Healthcare, Richmond, VIC, Australia.
A Y ShenEastern Health, C/O - Box Hill Hospital, Box Hill, Melbourne, Australia. amanda.yang.shen@gmail.com.
H B TanAlfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
R MaharSchool of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
G KanMelbourne Health, Melbourne, Australia.
W R KhooSouthern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
C M FaggionDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to conduct a methodological assessment of paper-based systematic reviews (SR) published in oral health using a validated checklist. A secondary objective was to explore temporal trends on methodological quality. MATERIAL AND

methodsTwo electronic databases (OVID Medline and OVID EMBASE) were searched for paper-based SR of interventions published in oral health from inception to October 2014. Manual searches of the reference lists of paper-based SR were also conducted. Methodological quality of included paper-based SR was assessed using an 11-item questionnaire, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Methodological quality was summarized using the median and inter-quartile range (IQR) of the AMSTAR score over different categories and time periods.

resultsA total of 643 paper-based SR were included. The overall median AMSTAR score was 4 (IQR 2-6). The highest median score (5) was found in the pain dentistry and periodontology fields, while the lowest median score (3) was found in implant dentistry, restorative dentistry, oral medicine, and prosthodontics. The number of paper-based SR per year and the median AMSTAR score increased over time (median score in 1990s was 2 (IQR 2-3), 2000s was 4 (IQR 2-5), and 2010 onwards was 5 (IQR 3-6)).

conclusionAlthough the methodological quality of paper-based SR published in oral health has improved in the last few years, there is still scope for improving quality in most evaluated dental specialties. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Large-scale assessment of methodological quality of dental SR highlights areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses that can be targeted in future publications to encourage better quality review methodology.

Indexed as

DentistryOral HealthPublishingReview Literature as TopicChecklistHumansPeer Review, ResearchResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesDental researchDentistryMeta-analysisResearch designReviewTrends

Identifiers

PMID26589200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.