牙科创伤学系统评价的证据图谱和质量评估：54个月的更新。

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

Dental Traumatology Pub Date : 2025-05-19 DOI:10.1111/edt.13073

Nitesh Tewari, Pavithra Devi, Hemlata Nehta, Ekta Wadhwani, Rigzen Tamchos, Georgios Tsilingaridis, Vijay Prakash Mathur, Morankar Rahul

{"title":"牙科创伤学系统评价的证据图谱和质量评估：54个月的更新。","authors":"Nitesh Tewari, Pavithra Devi, Hemlata Nehta, Ekta Wadhwani, Rigzen Tamchos, Georgios Tsilingaridis, Vijay Prakash Mathur, Morankar Rahul","doi":"10.1111/edt.13073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/aims: This update of previously conducted evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews related to dental traumatology aimed to assess the distribution of systematic reviews published in a period of past 54 months in various domains and subdomains and evaluate their quality. An attempt was also made to compare the trends of methodological and quality characteristics between the two Evidence Mapping studies.Methods: An a priori protocol was prepared as per the recommendations of Global Evidence Mapping and registered in Open Science Framework. The boundary conditions were defined and a search was performed electronically by two authors on November 30, 2024 in PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and EMBASE without any restrictions. EndNote Online was used to remove the duplicates and perform screening of titles and abstracts and the full texts. Data extraction was performed using a self-designed sheet and analyzed by the research group. AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools were used for assessing the quality of included systematic reviews.Results: The evidence mapping included 66 systematic reviews that could be distributed in six domains. The maximum number of them were in Epidemiologic domain (n = 21) and the subdomain of \"treatment protocols of permanent teeth\" (n = 14). The conclusion of 27 SRs was graded as inconclusive. An a priori registration of protocol was done in 55 SRs, majority of reviews did not have any restrictions in search, and gray literature search was done in 39 SRs. The most common risk of bias (ROB) tool used was the Jonna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist. The ROB of 51 SRs was low as per ROBIS, and high level of confidence was exhibited by 24 SRs as per AMSTAR-2.Conclusion: The highest number of SRs was seen in the domain of epidemiology, followed by therapeutic and prognostic domains. As per ROBIS, 77.27% of SRs were found to have low ROB with a high level of confidence in 39.4% SRs as per AMSTAR-2. There was significant improvement in methodological and quality trends as compared to the previous Evidence Mapping.","PeriodicalId":55180,"journal":{"name":"Dental Traumatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence Mapping and Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews in Dental Traumatology: A 54 Months Update.\",\"authors\":\"Nitesh Tewari, Pavithra Devi, Hemlata Nehta, Ekta Wadhwani, Rigzen Tamchos, Georgios Tsilingaridis, Vijay Prakash Mathur, Morankar Rahul\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/edt.13073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background/aims: This update of previously conducted evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews related to dental traumatology aimed to assess the distribution of systematic reviews published in a period of past 54 months in various domains and subdomains and evaluate their quality. An attempt was also made to compare the trends of methodological and quality characteristics between the two Evidence Mapping studies.Methods: An a priori protocol was prepared as per the recommendations of Global Evidence Mapping and registered in Open Science Framework. The boundary conditions were defined and a search was performed electronically by two authors on November 30, 2024 in PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and EMBASE without any restrictions. EndNote Online was used to remove the duplicates and perform screening of titles and abstracts and the full texts. Data extraction was performed using a self-designed sheet and analyzed by the research group. AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools were used for assessing the quality of included systematic reviews.Results: The evidence mapping included 66 systematic reviews that could be distributed in six domains. The maximum number of them were in Epidemiologic domain (n = 21) and the subdomain of \\\"treatment protocols of permanent teeth\\\" (n = 14). The conclusion of 27 SRs was graded as inconclusive. An a priori registration of protocol was done in 55 SRs, majority of reviews did not have any restrictions in search, and gray literature search was done in 39 SRs. The most common risk of bias (ROB) tool used was the Jonna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist. The ROB of 51 SRs was low as per ROBIS, and high level of confidence was exhibited by 24 SRs as per AMSTAR-2.Conclusion: The highest number of SRs was seen in the domain of epidemiology, followed by therapeutic and prognostic domains. As per ROBIS, 77.27% of SRs were found to have low ROB with a high level of confidence in 39.4% SRs as per AMSTAR-2. There was significant improvement in methodological and quality trends as compared to the previous Evidence Mapping.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dental Traumatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dental Traumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.13073\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.13073","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的：本研究更新了先前进行的与口腔创伤学相关的系统综述的证据图谱和质量分析，旨在评估过去54个月在各个领域和子领域发表的系统综述的分布，并评估其质量。我们还尝试比较两种证据图谱研究在方法学和质量特征上的趋势。方法：根据全球证据图谱的建议编制先验方案，并在开放科学框架中注册。定义边界条件，并由两位作者于2024年11月30日在PubMed， LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane， Scopus和EMBASE中进行电子检索，没有任何限制。EndNote Online用于删除重复内容，并对标题、摘要和全文进行筛选。使用自行设计的表格进行数据提取，并由课题组进行分析。使用AMSTAR-2和ROBIS工具评估纳入系统评价的质量。结果：证据图谱包括66篇系统综述，可分布在6个领域。以流行病学域（n = 21）和“恒牙治疗方案”子域（n = 14）最多。27例SRs的结论被评为不确定。55篇sr进行了方案的先验注册，大多数综述在检索中没有任何限制，39篇sr进行了灰色文献检索。最常用的偏见风险（ROB）工具是Jonna Briggs研究所的关键评估清单。根据ROBIS， 51个sr的ROB较低，而根据AMSTAR-2, 24个sr表现出较高的置信度。结论：SRs在流行病学领域发生率最高，其次为治疗和预后领域。根据ROBIS， 77.27%的SRs被发现具有低ROB，而根据AMSTAR-2, 39.4%的SRs具有高置信度。与以前的证据制图相比，在方法和质量趋势方面有了显著的改进。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Evidence Mapping and Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews in Dental Traumatology: A 54 Months Update.

Background/aims: This update of previously conducted evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews related to dental traumatology aimed to assess the distribution of systematic reviews published in a period of past 54 months in various domains and subdomains and evaluate their quality. An attempt was also made to compare the trends of methodological and quality characteristics between the two Evidence Mapping studies.

Methods: An a priori protocol was prepared as per the recommendations of Global Evidence Mapping and registered in Open Science Framework. The boundary conditions were defined and a search was performed electronically by two authors on November 30, 2024 in PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and EMBASE without any restrictions. EndNote Online was used to remove the duplicates and perform screening of titles and abstracts and the full texts. Data extraction was performed using a self-designed sheet and analyzed by the research group. AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools were used for assessing the quality of included systematic reviews.

Results: The evidence mapping included 66 systematic reviews that could be distributed in six domains. The maximum number of them were in Epidemiologic domain (n = 21) and the subdomain of "treatment protocols of permanent teeth" (n = 14). The conclusion of 27 SRs was graded as inconclusive. An a priori registration of protocol was done in 55 SRs, majority of reviews did not have any restrictions in search, and gray literature search was done in 39 SRs. The most common risk of bias (ROB) tool used was the Jonna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist. The ROB of 51 SRs was low as per ROBIS, and high level of confidence was exhibited by 24 SRs as per AMSTAR-2.

Conclusion: The highest number of SRs was seen in the domain of epidemiology, followed by therapeutic and prognostic domains. As per ROBIS, 77.27% of SRs were found to have low ROB with a high level of confidence in 39.4% SRs as per AMSTAR-2. There was significant improvement in methodological and quality trends as compared to the previous Evidence Mapping.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

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.