Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with meta-analyses focusing on traumatic dental injuries: A cross-sectional study.

IF 2.3 3区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Dental Traumatology Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-18 DOI:10.1111/edt.12872

Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Clovis M Faggion, Vellore Kannan Gopinath, Srinivasan Narasimhan, Henry F Duncan, Liran Levin, Paul V Abbott, Paul M H Dummer

{"title":"Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with meta-analyses focusing on traumatic dental injuries: A cross-sectional study.","authors":"Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Clovis M Faggion, Vellore Kannan Gopinath, Srinivasan Narasimhan, Henry F Duncan, Liran Levin, Paul V Abbott, Paul M H Dummer","doi":"10.1111/edt.12872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/aims: High methodological quality is required to interpret results of systematic reviews (SRs) in a reliable and accurate manner. The primary aim of this study was to appraise the methodologic quality of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and assess overall confidence in their results. A secondary aim was to identify potential predictive factors associated with methodological quality.Materials and methods: SRs with meta-analyses published in English in the field of traumatic dental injuries from inception to March 2023 were identified. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Two independent evaluators scored each AMSTAR 2 item as \"yes\" if it was adequately addressed, \"partial yes\" if it was partially addressed, and \"no\" if it was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as \"High,\" \"Moderate,\" \"Low,\" or \"Critically low.\" Using multiple regression, the relationship between five predictor variables (journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, journal adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and a priori protocol registration) and the total AMSTAR 2 scores was analyzed. The p-value was 5%.Results: Forty-one SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of 13 reviews was categorized as \"Critically low,\" 18 as \"Low,\" 3 as \"Moderate\" and 7 as \"High.\" Among the five predictor variables analyzed statistically, impact factor of the journal and year of publication significantly influenced the total AMSTAR 2 scores. The number of authors, adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and a priori protocol registration had no significant impact on AMSTAR 2 scores.Conclusion: The overall confidence in the results of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries was \"Low\" or \"Critically Low\" in the vast majority of studies (31 of 41). SRs with meta-analyses published in journals with higher impact factors and more recent publications had significantly higher methodological quality.","PeriodicalId":55180,"journal":{"name":"Dental Traumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12872","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background/aims: High methodological quality is required to interpret results of systematic reviews (SRs) in a reliable and accurate manner. The primary aim of this study was to appraise the methodologic quality of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and assess overall confidence in their results. A secondary aim was to identify potential predictive factors associated with methodological quality.

Materials and methods: SRs with meta-analyses published in English in the field of traumatic dental injuries from inception to March 2023 were identified. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Two independent evaluators scored each AMSTAR 2 item as "yes" if it was adequately addressed, "partial yes" if it was partially addressed, and "no" if it was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as "High," "Moderate," "Low," or "Critically low." Using multiple regression, the relationship between five predictor variables (journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, journal adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and a priori protocol registration) and the total AMSTAR 2 scores was analyzed. The p-value was 5%.

Results: Forty-one SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of 13 reviews was categorized as "Critically low," 18 as "Low," 3 as "Moderate" and 7 as "High." Among the five predictor variables analyzed statistically, impact factor of the journal and year of publication significantly influenced the total AMSTAR 2 scores. The number of authors, adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and a priori protocol registration had no significant impact on AMSTAR 2 scores.

Conclusion: The overall confidence in the results of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries was "Low" or "Critically Low" in the vast majority of studies (31 of 41). SRs with meta-analyses published in journals with higher impact factors and more recent publications had significantly higher methodological quality.

查看原文本刊更多论文

对外伤性牙齿损伤的荟萃分析的系统评价结果的方法学评估和总体信心:一项横断面研究。

背景/目的:高方法学质量要求以可靠和准确的方式解释系统评价(SRs)的结果。本研究的主要目的是利用A测量工具评估系统评价(AMSTAR) 2工具，通过荟萃分析评估创伤性牙齿损伤领域的SRs的方法学质量，并评估其结果的总体可信度。第二个目的是确定与方法学质量相关的潜在预测因素。材料和方法:选取创伤性牙损伤领域从成立到2023年3月发表的英文meta分析的SRs。使用AMSTAR 2检查表评估纳入的综述的方法学质量。两名独立的评估人员对AMSTAR 2的每个项目进行评分，如果问题得到充分解决，则为“是”;如果问题得到部分解决，则为“部分是”;如果问题没有得到解决，则为“否”。对每个评价结果的总体信心被分类为“高”、“中等”、“低”或“极低”。使用多元回归，分析了五个预测变量(期刊影响因子、发表年份、作者数量、期刊对系统评价和meta分析[PRISMA]指南的首选报告项目的依从性和先验方案注册)与AMSTAR 2总得分之间的关系。p值为5%。结果:纳入41例SRs。对13项评估结果的总体信心分为“极低”、“低”、“中等”和“高”。在统计分析的5个预测变量中，期刊和出版年份的影响因子对AMSTAR 2总分有显著影响。作者数量、对PRISMA指南的依从性和先验方案注册对AMSTAR 2评分没有显著影响。结论:在外伤性牙齿损伤领域的meta分析中，绝大多数研究(41项中的31项)对SRs结果的总体置信度为“低”或“极低”。荟萃分析发表在影响因子较高的期刊和较新的出版物上，其研究报告的方法学质量显著较高。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Dental Traumatology 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.40

自引率

32.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Dental Traumatology is an international journal that aims to convey scientific and clinical progress in all areas related to adult and pediatric dental traumatology. This includes the following topics: - Epidemiology, Social Aspects, Education, Diagnostics - Esthetics / Prosthetics/ Restorative - Evidence Based Traumatology & Study Design - Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery/Transplant/Implant - Pediatrics and Orthodontics - Prevention and Sports Dentistry - Endodontics and Periodontal Aspects The journal"s aim is to promote communication among clinicians, educators, researchers, and others interested in the field of dental traumatology.