Top

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies

Authors: Christopher Hammel, Nikolaos Pandis, Dawid Pieper, Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Systematic 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

Available only for authorised users

Lord SJ, Irwig L, Bossuyt PM. 2009 Using the Principles of Randomized Controlled Trial Design To Guide Test Evaluation. In: Medical Tests-White Paper Series. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).

Faggion CM. Animal research as a basis for clinical trials. Eur J Oral Sci. 2015;123:61–4.CrossRefPubMed

Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JPA, Jaeschke R, Devereaux PJ, Prasad K, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2014;312:171–9.CrossRefPubMed

Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, Mayhew A, Skidmore B, Stevens A, et al. Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study. Syst Rev. 2017;6:117.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2:e1350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2 a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

de Vries RBM, Wever KE, Avey MT, Stephens ML, Sena ES, Leenaars M. The Usefulness of Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments for the Design of Preclinical and Clinical Studies. ILAR J. 2014;55:427–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Elshafay A, Omran ES, Abdelkhalek M, El-Badry MO, Eisa HG, Fala SY, et al. Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35:1631–41.CrossRefPubMed

10.

West SL, Gartlehner G, Mansfield AJ, Poole C, Tant E, Lenfestey N, et al. 2010 Comparative Effectiveness Review Methods: Clinical Heterogeneity. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).

11.

Dilber E, Hagenfeld D, Ehmke B, Faggion CM. A systematic review on bacterial community changes after periodontal therapy with and without systemic antibiotics: An analysis with a wider lens. J Periodontal Res. 2020;55:785–800.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Cafferata EA, Jerez A, Vernal R, Monasterio G, Pandis N, Faggion CM. The therapeutic potential of regulatory T lymphocytes in periodontitis: A systematic review. J Periodontal Res. 2019;54:207–17.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Lenzi TL, Gimenez T, Tedesco TK, Mendes FM, de Rocha R O, Raggio DP. Adhesive systems for restoring primary teeth a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2016;26:364–75.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Archambault A, Lacoursiere R, Badawi H, Major PW, Carey J, Flores-Mir C. Torque expression in stainless steel orthodontic brackets. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:201–10.

15.

Altman DG, Simera I. A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. J R Soc Med. 2016;109:67–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Grimshaw J. So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years. CMAJ. 2004;171:747–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Davies P, Boruch R. The Campbell Collaboration: Does for public policy what Cochrane does for health. BMJ. 2001;323:294–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Lorenz RC, Matthias K, Pieper D, Wegewitz U, Morche J, Nocon M, et al. AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality? J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;119:142–4.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Faggion CM. Guidelines for reporting pre-clinical in vitro studies on dental materials. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012;12:182–9.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Fleming PS, Koletsi D, Seehra J, Pandis N. Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:754–9.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Rosselli D. The language of biomedical sciences. The Lancet. 2016;387:1720–1.CrossRef

22.

Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials gov.Results Database-Update and Key Issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:852–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Soliman N, Rice ASC, Vollert J. A practical guide to preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001974.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet. 2014;383:166–75.CrossRef

26.

Pieper D, Lorenz RC, Rombey T, Jacobs A, Rissling O, Freitag S, et al. Authors should report how they derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2—a cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:97–103.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies
Authors: Christopher Hammel
Nikolaos Pandis
Dawid Pieper
Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01575-z

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Comparing outcomes from tailored meta-analysis with outcomes from a setting specific test accuracy study using routine data of faecal calprotectin testing for inflammatory bowel disease

A data-driven pipeline to extract potential adverse drug reactions through prescription, procedures and medical diagnoses analysis: application to a cohort study of 2,010 patients taking hydroxychloroquine with an 11-year follow-up

Inference following multiple imputation for generalized additive models: an investigation of the median p-value rule with applications to the Pulmonary Hypertension Association Registry and Colorado COVID-19 hospitalization data

Using information from network meta-analyses to optimize the power and sample allocation of a subsequent trial with a new treatment

Leveraging pleiotropic association using sparse group variable selection in genomics data

Robust meta-analysis for large-scale genomic experiments based on an empirical approach