Conflict of interest and source of funding statement
Critical appraisal of systematic reviews on the effect of a history of periodontitis on dental implant loss
Article first published online: 5 APR 2013
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Volume 40, Issue 5, pages 542–552, May 2013
How to Cite
Critical appraisal of systematic reviews on the effect of a history of periodontitis on dental implant loss. J Clin Periodontol 2013; 40: 542–552. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12096., .
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
The first author is the Colgate Senior Lecturer at the University of Otago. This position is partially supported by an unrestricted grant from Colgate–Palmolive New Zealand to the University of Otago. The last author is affiliated to the University of Heidelberg. The authors received no special funding for conducting this study.
- Issue published online: 5 APR 2013
- Article first published online: 5 APR 2013
- Accepted manuscript online: 8 FEB 2013 11:03AM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 3 FEB 2013
- AMSTAR ;
- methodological quality;
- systematic reviews
To perform a systematic critical appraisal of the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the effect of a history of periodontitis on dental implant loss.
Materials & Methods
PubMed, the Cochrane database for systematic reviews, the DARE, Biosis Preview, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS electronic databases were searched on 16th June 2012, independently and in duplicate, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to dental implants for patients with and without a history of periodontitis. Manual searching of the reference lists of included papers was also conducted. The methodological quality of these systematic reviews was assessed by use of the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR checklists. Before quality assessment was initiated, the reviewers were calibrated until they achieved excellent agreement.
Sixty-eight papers were initially retrieved. Of these, nine systematic reviews and three meta-analyses were included. Some domains, for example, “characteristics of the included studies” were satisfied in both checklists. In contrast, domains such as “comprehensive literature search” and “assessment of likelihood of publication bias” were rarely met.
Much methodological variability was encountered in the selected reviews. To furnish readers with a more comprehensive assessment of the evidence, authors should observe higher standards when conducting and reporting their reviews.