Risk of bias and methodological critical appraisal in systematic reviews of non- and micro-invasive caries management for primary and permanent teeth.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Paediatric dentistry should rely on evidence-based clinical decisions supported by high-quality, unbiased systematic reviews (SRs). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias of SRs focused on non- and micro-invasive treatment for caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth. METHODS A comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and ProQuest, up to March 2023 to identify relevant systematic reviews (SRs) focused on non- and micro-invasive caries treatment. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the included SRs and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias using the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. RESULTS A total of 39 SRs were included in the analysis. Among these, 27 SRs (69.2%) were assessed as having critically low methodological quality, 11 SRs (28.2%) were considered to have low methodological quality and only one SR was rated as high-quality. The primary concern identified was the absence of protocol registration before the commencing the study, observed in 33 SR when using the AMSTAR 2 tool. According to the ROBIS tool, 21 studies (53.8%) were categorised as low risk of bias, 10 (25.6%) as high risk and eight (20.5%) as unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSION Our analysis revealed that SRs focused on non- and micro-invasive treatment for caries in children and adolescents had critically low methodological quality according to the AMSTAR 2 tool but demonstrated a low risk of bias based on the ROBIS tool. These findings highlight the importance of emphasizing prospective protocol registration, clear reporting of statistical analyses, and addressing potential bias implications within this topic. By addressing these issues, we can enhance the quality of SRs and ensure that clinical decisions rely on unbiased and trustworthy evidence. Registry DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/AR4MS.