OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological approaches used to assess the quality of studies included in systematic reviews (SRs) in periodontology and implant dentistry. MATERIALS & METHODS: Two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched independently to identify SRs examining interventions published through 2 September 2013. The reference lists of included SRs and records of 10 specialty dental journals were searched manually. Methodological approaches were assessed using seven criteria based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Temporal trends in methodological quality were also explored. RESULTS: Of the 159 SRs with meta-analyses included in the analysis, 44 (28%) reported the use of domain-based tools, 15 (9%) reported the use of checklists and 7 (4%) reported the use of scales. Forty-two (26%) SRs reported use of more than one tool. Criteria were met heterogeneously; authors of 15 (9%) publications incorporated the quality of evidence of primary studies into SRs, whereas 69% of SRs reported methodological approaches in the Materials/Methods section. Reporting of four criteria was significantly better in recent (2010-2013) than in previous publications. CONCLUSION: The analysis identified several methodological limitations of approaches used to assess evidence in studies included in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological approaches used to assess the quality of studies included in systematic reviews (SRs) in periodontology and implant dentistry. MATERIALS & METHODS: Two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched independently to identify SRs examining interventions published through 2 September 2013. The reference lists of included SRs and records of 10 specialty dental journals were searched manually. Methodological approaches were assessed using seven criteria based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Temporal trends in methodological quality were also explored. RESULTS: Of the 159 SRs with meta-analyses included in the analysis, 44 (28%) reported the use of domain-based tools, 15 (9%) reported the use of checklists and 7 (4%) reported the use of scales. Forty-two (26%) SRs reported use of more than one tool. Criteria were met heterogeneously; authors of 15 (9%) publications incorporated the quality of evidence of primary studies into SRs, whereas 69% of SRs reported methodological approaches in the Materials/Methods section. Reporting of four criteria was significantly better in recent (2010-2013) than in previous publications. CONCLUSION: The analysis identified several methodological limitations of approaches used to assess evidence in studies included in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry.