Abstract

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature. This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Our study aims to systematically review all available quality assessment (QA) tools employed on in vitro SRs/MAs.MethodA search on four databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library and Web of Science, was conducted from 2006 to 2020. The available SRs/MAs of in vitro studies were evaluated. DARE tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included articles. Our protocol was developed and uploaded to ResearchGate in June 2016.ResultsOur findings reported an increasing trend in publication of in vitro SRs/MAs from 2007 to 2020. Among the 244 included SRs/MAs, 126 articles (51.6%) had conducted the QA procedure. Overall, 51 QA tools were identified; 26 of them (51%) were developed by the authors specifically, whereas 25 (49%) were pre-constructed tools. SRs/MAs in dentistry frequently had their own QA tool developed by the authors, while SRs/MAs in other topics applied various QA tools. Many pre-structured tools in these in vitro SRs/MAs were modified from QA tools of in vivo or clinical trials, therefore, they had various criteria.ConclusionMany different QA tools currently exist in the literature; however, none cover all critical aspects of in vitro SRs/MAs. There is a need for a comprehensive guideline to ensure the quality of SR/MA due to their precise nature.

Highlights

  • Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature

  • SRs/MAs in dentistry frequently had their own quality assessment (QA) tool developed by the authors, while SRs/MAs in other topics applied various QA tools

  • Many pre-structured tools in these in vitro SRs/MAs were modified from QA tools of in vivo or clinical trials, they had various criteria

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are crucial methods of EBM that assess the findings of different work in the medical literature on related topics. ToxRTool and Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT) are two examples of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s recommendation for SRs/ MAs of in vitro studies [12]. Both tools cover different aspects of risk of bias, providing researchers with a partial guide while conducting or assessing these studies

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call