RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality. METHODS: Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of '1' if it was fully addressed, '0.5' if it was partially ddressed, and '0' if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%. RESULTS: A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores. DISCUSSION: Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores. CONCLUSION: In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To assess the frequency of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and non-PROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing head/neck cancers. METHODS: We included RCTs about interventions to treat head/neck cancers. PubMed was searched on September 16, 2022 and included studies published during three periods (2000-2002, 2010-2012, and 2020-2022). Data on types of outcomes and instruments to measure them were extracted and organized into PROs and non-PROs, and temporal trends for reporting outcomes were determined. RESULTS: There was a reduction in the frequency of non-PROs (40% to 22%) and an increase in PROs (5% to 19%) over 20 years. The frequency of reporting both non-PROs and PROs seemed to be stable over the same period (55% to 58%). A great variety of instruments to measure PROs and non-PROs was identified. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a growth in the types of PROs in more recent years, and they were more frequently reported in RCTs. However, head/neck cancer trials with a combination of PROs and non-PROs were the most prevalent.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (eg, scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The aims of this research were to investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions (i.e. reviews of primary research broadly defined as any including both periodontic and orthodontic components) and to provide a mapping of the researched topics. We searched four major databases (PubMed, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Embase) for systematic reviews of periodontal-orthodontic interactions. We used the AMSTAR-2 tool (the acronym is derived from 'a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews') to assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Individual AMSTAR-2 ratings were tabulated, and the percentage per item was calculated. To assess the association between the AMSTAR-2 percentage score and the overall confidence in the systematic review results, an ordinal regression model was used. We initially retrieved 973 documents, and 43 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of interventions were the most prevalent (n = 26, 60.5%). Most of the systematic reviews did not report a meta-analysis (n = 25, 58.1%). In addition, most of the studies included in the systematic reviews had an unclear or high risk of bias. Most of the systematic reviews were rated as having critically low or low overall confidence (n = 34, 79.1%). A significant correlation was found between the AMSTAR-2 percentage score and overall confidence in the results. The methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions can be improved. The limitations of our study include potential language bias and an arbitrary classification of the topics researched.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Meta-analyses may provide imprecise estimates when important meta-analysis parameters are not considered during the synthesis. The aim of this case study was to highlight the influence of meta-analysis parameters that can affect reported estimates using as an example pre-existing meta-analyses on the association between implant survival and sinus membrane perforation. PubMed was searched on 7 July 2021 for meta-analyses comparing implant failure in perforated and non-perforated sinus membranes. Primary studies identified in these meta-analyses were combined in a new random-effects model with odds ratios (ORs), confidence intervals (CIs), and prediction intervals reported. Using this new meta-analysis, further meta-analyses were then undertaken considering the clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity of the primary studies, publication bias, and clustering effects. The meta-analyses with the greatest number and more homogeneous studies provided lower odds of implant failure in non-perforated sites (OR 0.49, 95 % CI = [0.26, 0.92]). However, when considering heterogeneity, publication bias, and clustering (number of implants), the confidence in these results was reduced. Interpretation of estimates reported in systematic reviews can vary depending on the assumptions made in the meta-analysis. Users of these analyses need to carefully consider the impact of heterogeneity, publication bias, and clustering, which can affect the size, direction, and interpretation of the reported estimates.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Junior doctors make clinical decisions regularly; therefore, they need to adequately interpret the evidence supporting these decisions. Patients can be harmed if clinical treatments are supported by biased or unreliable evidence. Systematic reviews that contain meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are a relatively low-biased type of evidence to support clinical interventions. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that doctors will likely select this type of study to answer clinical questions. In this article, doctors are informed about potential methodological and ethical issues in systematic reviews that contain a meta-analysis that are sometimes not easily identified or even overlooked by the current tools developed to assess their methodological quality or risk of bias. The article presents a discussion of topics related to data extraction, accuracy in reporting, reproducibility, heterogeneity, quality assessment of primary studies included in the systematic review, sponsorship, and conflict of interest. It is expected that the information reported will be useful for junior doctors when they are reading and interpreting evidence from systematic reviews containing meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions, mainly those doctors unfamiliar with methodological principles.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews including animal models can be heterogeneous. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews including animal models in dentistry as well as the overall confidence in the results of those systematic reviews. MATERIAL & METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for systematic reviews including animal studies in dentistry published later than January 2010 until 18th of July 2022. Overall confidence in the results was assessed using a modified version of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. Checklist items were rated as yes, partial yes, no and not applicable. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations between systematic review characteristics and the overall adherence to the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The overall confidence in the results was calculated based on the number of critical and non-critical weaknesses presented in the AMSTAR-2 items and rated as high, moderate, low and critical low. RESULTS: Of initially 951 retrieved systematic reviews, 190 were included in the study. The overall confidence in the results was low in 43 (22.6%) and critically low in 133 (70.0%) systematic reviews. While some AMSTAR-2 items were regularly reported (e.g. conflict of interest, selection in duplicate), others were not (e.g. FUNDING: n = 1; 0.5%). Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that the adherence scores of AMSTAR-2 was significantly associated with publication year, journal impact factor (IF), topic, and the use of tools to assess risk of bias (RoB) of the systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Although the methodological quality of dental systematic reviews of animal models improved over the years, it is still suboptimal. The overall confidence in the results was mostly low or critically low. Systematic reviews, which were published later, published in a journal with a higher IF, focused on non-surgery topics, and used at least one tool to assess RoB correlated with greater adherence to the AMSTAR-2 guidelines.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was originally developed for systematic reviews (SRs) of health-care interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of AMSTAR 2 to SRs of non-intervention studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a meta-research study. We used 20 SRs for each of the following four types of SRs: Diagnostic Test Accuracy reviews, Etiology and/or Risk reviews, Prevalence and/or Incidence reviews, and Prognostic reviews (80 in total). Three authors applied AMSTAR 2 independently to each included SRs. Then, the authors assessed the applicability of each item to that SR type and any SR type. RESULTS: Researchers unanimously indicated that 7 of 16 AMSTAR 2 items were applicable for all four specific SR types and any SR type (items 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14 and 16), but 8 of 16 items for any SR type. These items could cover generic SR methods that do not depend on a specific SR type. CONCLUSION: AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable for non-intervention SRs. There is a need to adapt/extend AMSTAR 2 for SRs of non-intervention studies. Our study can help to further define generic methodological aspects shared across SR types and methodological expectations for non-intervention SRs.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Scientific workshops are held to develop important documents for clinical practice and policymaking. In these workshops, people with different skills and backgrounds meet to discuss, plan and conduct the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines that will be references for researchers, clinicians, patients and other stakeholders, such as insurance companies. The aim of this opinion article is to initiate a discussion on the need for clear and measurable criteria for the selection of participants in scientific workshops. Some examples of workshops in different dental disciplines are used to illustrate that apparently there is no transparent reporting of the criteria used to select participants. Some ethical implications are described in this article, as well as some suggestions to increase transparency in the process of selecting the participants for these scientific workshops. It is expected that overall trust in research, including from parties not directly associated with it, will increase when these selection criteria are transparently reported.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This systematic review provides an update on the effect of nanofibers as reinforcement on resin-based dental materials. A bibliographic search was conducted in MEDLINEPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, BVS (LILACS, BBO e IBECS), Cochrane, LIVIVO, and gray literature (BDTD) to identify relevant articles up to May 2021. In vitro studies that evaluated and compared the mechanical properties of nanofibers resin-based composite materials, were eligible. No publication year or language restriction was applied, and methodological quality was assessed using two methods. In a total of 6100 potentially eligible studies, 81 were selected for full-text analysis and 35 were included for qualitative analysis. Of the 35 included studies, a total of 29 studies evaluated the flexural strength (FS) of the materials. These groups were distinguished according to the resin-based materials tested and nanofiber types. Most of the studies evaluated materials composed of glass fibers and demonstrated higher values of FS when compared to resin-based materials without nanofibers. The incorporation of nanofibers into resin-based dental materials improved the mechanical properties compared to resin-based materials without nanofibers, suggesting better performance of these materials in high-stressbearing application areas. Further clinical studies are required to confirm the efficacy of resin-based materials with nanofibers.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The study aimed to assess the prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts of RCTs in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and to assess the risk indicators which may be associated with spin. Any original publication reporting a two-arm RCT in dental caries with clearly identified statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published from January 1, 2015 until October 28, 2022 were included. PubMed was searched electronically to identify the eligible publications. The prevalence of spin in titles and abstracts were assessed and categorized into spin patterns based on a pre-determined classification scheme. The association between spin and the potential risk indicators at study, author, journal, institutional, and national level was assessed. A total of 234 eligible RCT publications were included. The prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts was 3% (95%CI: 2% to 6%) and 79% (95%CI: 74% to 84%), respectively. The most common spin patterns in the results and conclusion sections, respectively, were results focusing on statistically significant within-group comparisons (23%), and conclusions focusing only on statistically significant results without acknowledgment of statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcomes (26%). The spin was significantly associated with number of study centers (single-center vs. multicenter) (OR=2.131; 95%CI: 1.092 to 4.158; P=0.03), trial designs (non-parallel designs vs. parallel designs) (OR=0.395; 95%CI: 0.193 to 0.810; P=0.01), and overall H index of institutions for last authors (OR=0.998; 95%CI: 0.996 to 0.999; P<0.01), while it was not significantly associated with the other indicators. In the RCT publications with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes in dental caries, the prevalence of spin may be low in the titles but high in the abstracts. Single-center studies with parallel designs and a lower overall H index of institutions for last authors may be more likely to have spin in the abstracts.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Item 13 of the CONSORT guidelines recommends documentation of the participant flow in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) using a diagram. In the medical literature, the reporting of the flow of participants in RCTs has been assessed to be inadequate. The quality of reporting flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of flow diagrams in RCTs published in periodontology and implantology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RCTs published between 15th January 2018 and 15th January 2022 in twelve high-ranked periodontology and implantology journals were identified. Trial characteristics at the RCT level were extracted. The flow diagram included in each RCT was assessed for completeness of reporting in relation to published criteria and the CONSORT flow diagram template. RESULTS: From the 544 eligible articles, 85% were single-centre, 82% of parallel-group design and 79% investigated surgical interventions. Three-hundred and fifteen (58%) articles were published in CONSORT endorsing journals. A flow diagram was reported in 317 (58%) trials and reporting was more common in periodontology (73.1%). Overall, 56% of publications with a flow diagram reported a complete CONSORT flow diagram, while in 44% of flow diagrams, at least one point from the CONSORT reporting template was missing. Reasons for loss to follow-up (69.7%) and exclusions from the RCT analysis (86.4%) were poorly reported. CONCLUSION: The reporting of flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology RCTs was sub-optimal. Greater awareness of the importance of fully completing the participant CONSORT flow diagram is required.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for NMA checklist. METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12. RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items. CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)