Pereira Alexandre-Godinho, Martins Carolina-Castro, Campos Julya-Ribeiro, Faria Sandro-Felipe-Santos, Notaro Sarah-Queiroz, Poklepović-Peričić Tina, Costa Lidiane-Cristina-Machado, Costa Fernando-Oliveira, Cota Luís-Otávio-Miranda
Department of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, BrazilDepartment of Dental Clinics, Oral Pathology, and Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
J Clin Exp Dent. 2023 Aug 1;15(8):e678-e694. doi: 10.4317/jced.60197. eCollection 2023 Aug.
Systematic reviews of intervention studies are used to support treatment recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of intervention studies in in the field of periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS.
Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, published between 2019 and 2020, were searched at MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, LILACS with no language restrictions between October 2019 to October 2020. Additionally, grey literature and hand search was performed. Paired independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias through the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.
One hundred twenty-seven reviews were included. According to AMSTAR 2, the methodological quality was mainly critically low (64.6%) and low (24.4%), followed by moderate (0.8%) and high (10.2%). According to ROBIS, 90.6% were at high risk of bias, followed by 7.1% low, and 2.4% unclear risk of bias. The risk of bias decreased with the increased in the impact factor of the journal.
Current systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontics were classified as low or critically low methodological quality and high risk of bias. Both tools led to similar conclusions. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines and stricter research practices when conducting systematic reviews are needed. Bias, evidence-based dentistry, methods, periodontics, systematic review.
干预研究的系统评价用于支持治疗建议。本研究的目的是使用AMSTAR 2和ROBIS评估牙周病学领域干预研究系统评价的方法学质量和偏倚风险。
于2019年10月至2020年10月在MedLine、Embase、科学网、Scopus、Cochrane图书馆、LILACS中检索2019年至2020年发表的随机和非随机临床试验的系统评价，无语言限制。此外，还进行了灰色文献检索和手工检索。由两名独立评审员筛选研究、提取数据，并通过AMSTAR 2和ROBIS工具评估方法学质量和偏倚风险。
纳入127篇综述。根据AMSTAR 2，方法学质量主要为极低（64.6%）和低（24.4%），其次是中等（0.8%）和高（10.2%）。根据ROBIS，90.6%存在高偏倚风险，其次是7.1%低偏倚风险和2.4%偏倚风险不明确。偏倚风险随期刊影响因子的增加而降低。
目前牙周病学干预研究的系统评价被归类为方法学质量低或极低，且偏倚风险高。两种工具得出了相似的结论。进行系统评价时需要更好地遵循既定的报告指南并采用更严格的研究方法。偏倚、循证牙科、方法、牙周病学、系统评价。
