Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Hospital Münster, Waldeyerstraße 30, 48149, Münster, Germany.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Oct 8;24(1):233. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02349-5.
The procedures used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of systematic reviews of observational dental studies have not been investigated. The purpose of this research was to examine the way that authors of systematic reviews of epidemiological observational studies published in dentistry conducted the methodological assessment of those primary studies. In the present article, we aimed to assess the characteristics and the level of reporting of tools used to assess the methodologies of these reviews.
We searched Scopus and the Web of Science from their inceptions to June 2023 for systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies published in dentistry. Document selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate and independently by two authors. In a random sample of 10% of the systematic reviews, there was an agreement of more than 80% between the reviewers; data selection and extraction were conducted in the remaining 90% of the sample by one author. Data on the article and systematic review characteristics were extracted and recorded for descriptive reporting.
The search in the two databases resulted in the inclusion of 3,214 potential documents. After the elimination of duplicates and the application of the eligibility criteria, a total of 399 systematic reviews were identified and included. A total of 368 systematic reviews reported a methodological tool, of which 102 used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Additionally, 76 systematic reviews stated the use of a modified methodological tool. Information about the approach of assessing the methodological quality or RoB of primary studies but reporting no tool or tool name occurred in 25 reviews.
The majority of authors of systematic reviews of epidemiological observational studies published in dentistry reported the tools used to assess the methodological quality or RoB of the included primary studies. Modifying existing tools to meet the individual characteristics of various studies should be considered.
目前尚未对评估观察性牙科研究系统评价的方法学质量和偏倚风险（RoB）的程序进行调查。本研究旨在检查发表在牙科学领域的流行病学观察性研究系统评价的作者对这些原始研究进行方法评估的方式。在本文中，我们旨在评估用于评估这些综述方法学的工具的特征和报告水平。
我们从 Scopus 和 Web of Science 的创建开始，对截至 2023 年 6 月发表的牙科学中具有荟萃分析的观察性研究系统评价进行了搜索。文档选择和数据提取由两位作者重复进行，且独立进行。在对 10%的系统评价进行随机抽样中，评审员之间的一致性超过 80%；在其余 90%的样本中，由一位作者进行数据选择和提取。提取并记录有关文章和系统评价特征的数据，以便进行描述性报告。
在这两个数据库中的搜索结果共纳入了 3214 篇潜在文献。经过重复文献消除和资格标准应用后，共确定并纳入了 399 篇系统评价。共有 368 篇系统评价报告了方法学工具，其中 102 篇使用了纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表。此外，76 篇系统评价表示使用了改良的方法学工具。有 25 篇综述仅报告了评估初级研究方法学质量或 RoB 的方法，但未报告工具或工具名称。
发表在牙科学领域的流行病学观察性研究系统评价的大多数作者报告了用于评估纳入的原始研究的方法学质量或 RoB 的工具。应考虑修改现有的工具以适应各种研究的个体特征。
