A Methodological Assessment of Weaknesses in Systematic Reviews on Pulp Capping

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical decision making in dentistry is directly impacted by the systematic reviews available. The increasing number of systematic reviews along with their direct impact in clinical practice has emerged a need to assess their quality. Pulp capping is an important alternative to the more invasive interventions such as endodontic treatment and aims to preserve pulp tissue. The aim of this study is to methodologically assess the weaknesses of systematic reviews on pulp capping and provide recommendations on how to improve them. Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to January 2022. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis including randomized and non-randomized studies on pulp capping were retrieved. A methodological assessment of their quality was performed using AMSTAR 2. Results: A total of 203 publications were identified and reviewed for eligibility. Twenty-seven fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2 by two independent reviewers. The results were analyzed, and weaknesses were noted. Conclusion: The study suggests an inconsistency in methods and structure in systematic reviews on pulp capping. Readers of the reviews should make use of AMSTAR 2 in order to evaluate their quality. Suggestions and weaknesses pinpointed can aid future systematic reviews to be more comprehensive with a more unified methodology.