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

Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu, Faggion Jr, Clovis M., Gopinath, Vellore Kannan, Narasimhan, Srinivasan, Duncan, Henry F., Levin, Liran, Abbott, Paul V. and Dummer, Paul M.H. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0726-7467 2023. Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with meta-analyses focusing on traumatic dental injuries: a cross-sectional study. Dental Traumatology 39 (6) , 637 - 646. 10.1111/edt.12872 Item availability restricted.

PDF - Accepted Post-Print Version Restricted to Repository staff only until 18 August 2024 due to copyright restrictions. Download (457kB)

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.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Dentistry
Publisher:	Wiley
ISSN:	1600-9657
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	7 December 2023
Date of Acceptance:	6 July 2023
Last Modified:	09 Dec 2023 22:37
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/164589

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item