Methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics: A cross-sectional study

IF 5.4 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE International endodontic journal Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1111/iej.14114

Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Vellore Kannan Gopinath, Srinivasan Narasimhan, Anirudh B. Acharya, Paul M. H. Dummer, Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr

{"title":"Methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics: A cross-sectional study","authors":"Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Vellore Kannan Gopinath, Srinivasan Narasimhan, Anirudh B. Acharya, Paul M. H. Dummer, Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr","doi":"10.1111/iej.14114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of ‘1’ if it was fully addressed, ‘0.5’ if it was partially ddressed, and ‘0’ if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (<i>a priori</i> protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, <i>a priori</i> protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered <i>a priori</i> had significantly superior methodological quality scores.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13724,"journal":{"name":"International endodontic journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International endodontic journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iej.14114","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality.

Methods

Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of ‘1’ if it was fully addressed, ‘0.5’ if it was partially ddressed, and ‘0’ if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%.

Results

A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores.

Discussion

Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores.

Conclusion

In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

牙髓病学伞状综述的方法学质量：横断面研究。

导言：在过去几年中，牙髓病学领域的综述数量显著增加，但没有证据表明这些综述在方法学上是可靠的。本研究旨在评估牙体牙髓病学伞式综述的方法学质量，并确定与方法学质量相关的可能预测因素：方法：纳入截至2023年12月在牙髓病学领域发表的综述。采用由 11 个项目组成的核对表对综述的方法学质量进行评估。检查表中的每个项目都由两名独立评估员进行评估，如果完全涉及，则打 "1 "分；如果部分涉及，则打 "0.5 "分；如果未涉及，则打 "0 "分。采用 Bootstrapped 多元线性回归分析法来研究总分与五个预测变量（先验方案注册、发表年份、作者人数、期刊影响因子 (IF) 和相应作者所在大陆）之间的关联。统计显著性水平设定为 5%：结果：共纳入 27 篇综述。96%的综述充分报告了：选择综述的资格标准、综述的细节、评估偏倚风险的技术或所纳入的单篇系统综述的方法学质量。只有 30% 的综述对个别系统性综述中重叠的主要研究进行了充分管理。在分析的五项预测因素中，先验方案注册和有IFs的期刊与方法学质量总分显著提高有关：讨论：在牙体牙髓病学领域发表的综述在方法上存在一些缺陷。结论：在牙体牙髓病学领域，作者发表的综述在方法学方面存在一些缺陷：在牙髓病学领域，打算发表综述的作者应考虑到本研究揭示的局限性，并遵循适当的规则，以确保其综述符合最高标准，并提供准确可靠的信息和结论。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

International endodontic journal 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

10.20

自引率

28.00%

发文量

195

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The International Endodontic Journal is published monthly and strives to publish original articles of the highest quality to disseminate scientific and clinical knowledge; all manuscripts are subjected to peer review. Original scientific articles are published in the areas of biomedical science, applied materials science, bioengineering, epidemiology and social science relevant to endodontic disease and its management, and to the restoration of root-treated teeth. In addition, review articles, reports of clinical cases, book reviews, summaries and abstracts of scientific meetings and news items are accepted. The International Endodontic Journal is essential reading for general dental practitioners, specialist endodontists, research, scientists and dental teachers.