Methodological evaluation of reviews that support recommendations from three consensus workshops in periodontology

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate comprehensiveness and reproducibility of reviews that support consensus guidelines in periodontology. MethodsWe included the reviews that support consensus guidelines from three workshops in periodontology, which were overseen by likely the two most important organisations in the field: the European Federation of Periodontology and the American Academy of Periodontology. We independently evaluated the comprehensiveness of literature searches by determining whether authors had searched reference lists, journals, registries and grey literature and whether the searches were limited to only one or a few languages. We evaluated whether review authors reported the eligibility criteria, the search strategies, and the list of included/excluded articles. We tested whether the search and selection of articles in one major database was reproducible. ResultsTwenty-nine reviews were evaluated. Two (7%) reviews reported grey literature searches, and more than two-thirds of the reviews did not report hand-searching. Almost half of the reviews did not report whether there was language restriction for the literature searches. Two-thirds of the reviews reported the use of keywords only (without Boolean operators). One-fourth of the reviews reported the presence of a list of excluded articles after the full-text assessment. None of the reviews reported a detailed list of excluded articles after screening of titles/abstracts. None of the reviews reported enough information to allow reproduction of the findings of the PubMed search. ConclusionsThere is room to improve the reporting of the methodologies that are used in reviews that support periodontology consensus guidelines, although heterogeneity in reporting was found across all the reviews.