Nagendrababu Venkateshbabu, Faggion Clovis M, Gopinath Vellore Kannan, Narasimhan Srinivasan, Duncan Henry F, Levin Liran, Abbott Paul V, Dummer Paul M H
Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Dent Traumatol. 2023 Dec;39(6):637-646. doi: 10.1111/edt.12872. Epub 2023 Aug 18.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
背景/目的：需要高方法学质量才能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使用评估系统评价的测量工具（AMSTAR）2工具评估创伤性牙损伤领域中进行荟萃分析的SRs的方法学质量，并评估对其结果的总体信心。次要目的是识别与方法学质量相关的潜在预测因素。
确定从开始到2023年3月在创伤性牙损伤领域以英文发表的进行荟萃分析的SRs。使用AMSTAR 2清单评估纳入评价的方法学质量。两名独立评估者将每个AMSTAR 2项目评为“是”（如果得到充分解决）、“部分是”（如果部分得到解决）和“否”（如果未得到解决）。将每个评价结果的总体信心分类为“高”、“中”、“低”或“极低”。使用多元回归分析五个预测变量（期刊影响因子、发表年份、作者数量、期刊对系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目[PRISMA]指南的遵守情况以及预先制定的方案注册）与AMSTAR 2总分之间的关系。p值为5%。
纳入41项SRs。13项评价结果的总体信心被分类为“极低”，18项为“低”，3项为“中”，7项为“高”。在统计分析的五个预测变量中，期刊影响因子和发表年份对AMSTAR 2总分有显著影响。作者数量、对PRISMA指南的遵守情况以及预先制定的方案注册对AMSTAR 2分数没有显著影响。
在绝大多数研究（41项中的31项）中，创伤性牙损伤领域进行荟萃分析的SRs结果的总体信心为“低”或“极低”。在影响因子较高的期刊上发表的以及较新发表的进行荟萃分析的SRs具有显著更高的方法学质量。
