Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention in dentistry published between 2019-2020 using the AMSTAR 2 tool.

Abstract

Introduction The number of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry published each year has grown considerably, and they have been essential in clinical decision-making and health policy.Objective The objective is to critically appraise SRs of intervention in dentistry using the 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2' (AMSTAR 2) tool published within one year.Methods A search in the Medline/PubMed database was performed. The SRs were identified in two phases. The first phase identified SRs of interventions in dentistry by title and abstract. In the second phase, the full text was read, applying the eligibility criteria. Three calibrated reviewers methodologically assessed all SRs identified using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Data were analysed descriptively, and SRs were grouped according to methodological quality as moderate/high and low/critically low. A logistic regression model was applied to explore the associations between methodological quality and the study's characteristics.Results Two hundred and twenty-two SRs were included. The methodological quality of the SRs included in this study were: critically low (56.8%), low (27.9%), moderate (14.4%) and high (0.9%), according to AMSTAR 2. There were no statistical differences between moderate/high and low/critically low methodological quality and publication year, continent, journal Impact Factor and dental speciality.Conclusion Less than 1% of recently published SRs in dentistry were classified with high methodological quality. We hope that this study will alert researchers about the need to improve the methodological quality of SRs.