Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41865492›Full record

ArticleInternational dental journal2026

Methodological Quality of Umbrella Reviews in Paediatric Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Vellore Kannan Gopinath, Lokhasudhan Govindaraju, Shaju Jacob Pulikkotil, Srinivasan Narasimhan, Raghavendra M Shetty, Clovis M Faggion, Paul M H Dummer, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Vellore Kannan GopinathDepartment of Orthodontics, Pediatric and Community Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Lokhasudhan GovindarajuDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sri Ramachandra Dental college and Hospital, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research (SRIHER), Tamilnadu, India.
Shaju Jacob PulikkotilProf. Shaju Jacob Pulikkotil Group. Oral Health Research, Faculty of Dentistry, Rīga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.
Srinivasan NarasimhanHamad Dental Center, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Raghavendra M ShettyDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman, UAE; Center of Medical and Bio‑Allied Health Sciences Research, Ajman University, Ajman, UAE; Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Adjunct Faculty, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research (Declared as Deemed-to-be University), Wardha, Maharashtra, India. Electronic address: drraghavendra77@gmail.com.
Clovis M FaggionFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Paul M H DummerSchool of Dentistry, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Venkateshbabu NagendrababuDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Pune, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

aimsThere has been a substantial increase in the number of umbrella reviews (URs) published in dentistry. To ensure their conclusions are accurate, these URs must be assessed for methodological quality. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the methodological quality of URs in paediatric dentistry, and to identify predictive factors associated with their methodological quality.

methodA literature search was conducted to identify URs published in paediatric dentistry and their methodological quality assessed using an 11-item checklist. Further analysis examined the relationship between 6 predictive factors and the methodological quality scores for each UR (H-index, publication year, number of authors, JCR impact factor, a priori protocol registration, and continent of the corresponding author).

resultsTwenty-six URs were included. Item 1 (including the selection criteria), Item 7 (describe the included systematic reviews), and Item 8 (use a satisfactory tool for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality) were reported adequately in all URs. The majority (73%) of URs did not adequately report item 9 (sources of funding for the systematic reviews included in the UR)A priori protocol registration was the only significant predictor of quality.

conclusionURs published in paediatric dentistry exhibited a range of methodological flaws. A priori protocol registration was associated with greater quality. In the future, authors intending to conduct systematic reviews should take into account the deficiencies identified in this study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Authors who conduct URs in paediatric dentistry should consider the deficiencies identified in this study in order to improve their design, implementation and reporting and thus ensure their findings are valid.

Indexed as

Pediatric DentistryResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicChecklistChildCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMethodological qualityPaediatric dentistrySystematic reviewUmbrella review

Identifiers

PMID41865492
PMCPMC13019789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.