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

Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu; Clovis M Faggion Jr; Vellore Kannan Gopinath; Srinivasan Narasimhan; Henry F Duncan; Liran Levin; Paul V Abbott; Paul M H Dummer

doi:10.1111/edt.12872

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

Dent Traumatol. 2023 Dec;39(6):637-646. doi: 10.1111/edt.12872. Epub 2023 Aug 18.

Authors

Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu¹, Clovis M Faggion Jr², Vellore Kannan Gopinath¹, Srinivasan Narasimhan³, Henry F Duncan⁴, Liran Levin⁵, Paul V Abbott⁶, Paul M H Dummer⁷

Affiliations

¹ Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
² Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
³ Hamad Dental Center, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
⁴ Division of Restorative Dentistry, Dublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
⁵ Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
⁶ UWA Dental School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
⁷ School of Dentistry, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

PMID: 37594908
DOI: 10.1111/edt.12872

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.

Keywords: AMSTAR 2; dental traumatology; methodological quality; systematic review.

Publication types

Meta-Analysis

MeSH terms

Checklist* / methods
Cross-Sectional Studies
Humans
Tooth Injuries* / therapy