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

doi:10.4317/jced.60197

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

J Clin Exp Dent. 2023 Aug 1;15(8):e678-e694. doi: 10.4317/jced.60197. eCollection 2023 Aug.

Authors

Alexandre-Godinho Pereira¹, Carolina-Castro Martins², Julya-Ribeiro Campos¹, Sandro-Felipe-Santos Faria¹, Sarah-Queiroz Notaro², Tina Poklepović-Peričić³, Lidiane-Cristina-Machado Costa⁴, Fernando-Oliveira Costa¹, Luís-Otávio-Miranda Cota¹

Affiliations

¹ Department 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.
² Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
³ Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
⁴ School of Dentistry, Newton Paiva University Center, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

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. Key words:Bias, evidence-based dentistry, methods, periodontics, systematic review.

Publication types

Review