Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37674600›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2023

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.

Alexandre-Godinho Pereira, Carolina-Castro Martins, Julya-Ribeiro Campos, Sandro-Felipe-Santos Faria, Sarah-Queiroz Notaro, Tina Poklepović-Peričić, Lidiane-Cristina-Machado Costa, Fernando-Oliveira Costa, Luís-Otávio-Miranda Cota

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Association Between Periodontitis and Mild Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer's Disease, and Dementia: An Umbrella Review With Evidence Stratification.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexandre-Godinho PereiraDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, BrazilDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Carolina-Castro MartinsDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Julya-Ribeiro CamposDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, BrazilDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Sandro-Felipe-Santos FariaDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, BrazilDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Sarah-Queiroz NotaroDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Tina Poklepović-PeričićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Lidiane-Cristina-Machado CostaSchool of Dentistry, Newton Paiva University Center, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Fernando-Oliveira CostaDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, BrazilDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Luís-Otávio-Miranda CotaDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, BrazilDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRCentro Universitário Newton Paiva · BRUniversity of Split · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews of intervention studies are used to support treatment recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of intervention studies in in the field of periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS. Material and Methods: Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, published between 2019 and 2020, were searched at MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, LILACS with no language restrictions between October 2019 to October 2020. Additionally, grey literature and hand search was performed. Paired independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias through the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. Results: One hundred twenty-seven reviews were included. According to AMSTAR 2, the methodological quality was mainly critically low (64.6%) and low (24.4%), followed by moderate (0.8%) and high (10.2%). According to ROBIS, 90.6% were at high risk of bias, followed by 7.1% low, and 2.4% unclear risk of bias. The risk of bias decreased with the increased in the impact factor of the journal. Conclusions: Current systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontics were classified as low or critically low methodological quality and high risk of bias. Both tools led to similar conclusions. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines and stricter research practices when conducting systematic reviews are needed.

Identifiers

PMID37674600
PMCPMC10478201
OpenAlexW4385608405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.