ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methodological quality of network meta-analyses of Chinese herbal medicine could be improved: an evidence mapping.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Influence of sodium hypochlorite on cyclic fatigue resistance of nickel-titanium instruments: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Standardizing Methodologies in Prosthodontics to Improve Research Reliability and Peer Review Efficiency: A Perspective-Based Proposal.Health science reports · 2025Article
- The Effect of Acidic Immersion Media on the Flexural Properties of a High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced CAD/CAM Technopolymer.Polymers · 2025Article
- Evaluating Bioassays for the Determination of Simvastatin's Osteogenic Activity: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- The interplay between toothbrush stiffness and charcoal-containing dentifrice on the development of enamel topography changes.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Effect of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Placement Site on Fracture Resistance of Premolar Teeth: An in vitro Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2024Article
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies: a cross-sectional study.Irish veterinary journal · 2023Article
- The methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using AMSTAR2.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Fracture Resistance of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Polymers · 2023Review
- Sol-gel synthesis of lithium doped mesoporous bioactive glass nanoparticles and tricalcium silicate for restorative dentistry: Comparative investigation of physico-chemical structure, antibacterial susceptibility and biocompatibility.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews of in-vitro studies, like any other study, can be of heterogeneous quality. The present study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies.
methodsWe searched for systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases published up to January 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the systematic reviews using a modified "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR-2) instrument. The 16 items, in the form of questions, were answered with yes, no, or py (partial yes). Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to examine the association between systematic review characteristics and AMSTAR-2 percent score. Overall confidence in the results of the systematic reviews was rated, based on weaknesses identified in critical and non-critical AMSTAR-2 items.
resultsThe search retrieved 908 potential documents, and after following the eligibility criteria, 185 systematic reviews were included. The most researched topics were ceramics and dental bonding. The overall rating for the confidence in the results was critically low in 126 (68%) systematic reviews. There was high variability in the response among the AMSTAR-2 items (0% to 75% positively answered). The univariable analyses indicated dental specialty (p = 0.03), number of authors (coef: 1.87, 95% CI: 0.26, 3.47, p = 0.02), and year of publication (coef: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.90, 3.38, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with the AMSTAR-2 percent score. Whereas, in the multivariable analysis only specialty (p = 0.01) and year of publication (coef: 2.60, 95% CI: 1.84, 3.35, p < 0.001) remained significant. Among specialties, endodontics achieved the highest AMSTAR-2 percent score.
conclusionsThe methods of systematic reviews of in vitro dental studies were suboptimal. Year of publication and dental specialty were associated with AMSTAR-2 scores. The overall rating of the confidence in the results was low and critically low for most systematic reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.