Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews of the Relationship Between Periodontal and Systemic Diseases

Zuhair S Natto; Alhassan Hameedaldain

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2018.12.003

Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews of the Relationship Between Periodontal and Systemic Diseases

J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019 Jun;19(2):131-139. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2018.12.003. Epub 2019 Jan 2.

Authors

Zuhair S Natto¹, Alhassan Hameedaldain²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: znatto@kau.edu.sa.
² Department of Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

PMID: 31326045
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2018.12.003

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this article are to identify all the published systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) that studied the relationship between periodontal and systemic diseases and to assess their quality using 2 scales (the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire [OQAQ] and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR] checklist).

Methods: For SRs and MAs to be included, they should have investigated one of the following systemic diseases: pulmonary conditions, cardiac conditions, endocrine conditions, cancer, blood disorders, psychological conditions, anxiety, depression, mood disorders, and several other diseases. Two investigators screened MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The tools used to evaluate quality were the AMSTAR scale and OQAQ. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018102208).

Results: The search strategy found 691 unique articles, 42 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Diabetes mellitus was the most investigated disease (14 out of 42 studies), followed by obesity (11 studies) and cardiovascular diseases (5 studies). A total of 40 reviews reported on the characteristics of included studies, and, as per the AMSTAR scale, 39 reviews had an a priori design. The number of reviews that fulfilled the status of publication criterion was the lowest (7 reviews only), followed by the number used in the assessment of publication bias (11 reviews). The number of high-quality reviews was higher with the OQAQ than with the AMSTAR checklist (33 vs 25 studies), but the AMSTAR showed a higher number of medium-quality reviews than the OQAQ (14 vs 6 studies). Both showed the same number of low-quality reviews.

Conclusions: High-quality SRs and MAs are crucial to understanding the relationship between systemic and periodontal diseases. Medical practitioners must be able to inform patients about oral health and specific periodontal health concerns.

Keywords: Level of evidence; Periodontal disease; Quality of publications; Systemic disease.

Publication types

Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Checklist*
Humans
PubMed
Publication Bias
Research Report*
Surveys and Questionnaires