Article type
Abstract
Background: There has been an increased production of network meta-analyses (NMAs). Previous research in dentistry has described limitations of dental NMAs; however, such studies are outdated and largely focus on adherence to reporting checklists.
Objective: To (1) provide an overview of existing dentistry NMAs, (2) describe their methods, and (3) explore their methodological quality.
Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 26-Oct-2023 for dentistry NMAs. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted screening in stages and data extraction. We will summarize the characteristics of the included NMAs (e.g. dental speciality, number of included studies), the methods for conducting the NMA (e.g., number of databases searched, statistical framework and software, tools used for quality assessment), and aspects related to the presentation of results (e.g., whether study selection flowchart is presented, whether absolute effects are presented for dichotomous outcomes). Additionally, we will assess aspects of methodological quality including whether key review stages were conducted in duplicate and the extent to which appropriate conclusions are drawn (i.e., authors refrain from making recommendations). The methodological quality was assessed using select, objective criteria from the ROBIS tool to allow for reproducibility; however, no formal tool was used to assess the quality of the NMA as we are not aware of any such tool.
Results: This work is in progress. We screened 1251 records of which 171 were deemed eligible. We will present a table summarizing the characteristics of the eligible NMAs including descriptive statistics for the frequency at which different methodological criteria were met. A preliminary analysis of the methodological qualities of 67 included studies found that 64% completed duplicate screening (at all stages) and duplicate data extraction. In terms of quality assessments, nearly all NMAs (97%) presented their risk of bias assessment results and 48% completed certainty of the evidence assessments.
Conclusion: Our conclusions will describe the characteristics and methodological quality of dentistry NMAs. These findings will inform knowledge users of any important limitations of current dental NMAs which will allow for appropriate interpretation of current NMAs whilst also informing researchers of gaps to address.
Objective: To (1) provide an overview of existing dentistry NMAs, (2) describe their methods, and (3) explore their methodological quality.
Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 26-Oct-2023 for dentistry NMAs. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted screening in stages and data extraction. We will summarize the characteristics of the included NMAs (e.g. dental speciality, number of included studies), the methods for conducting the NMA (e.g., number of databases searched, statistical framework and software, tools used for quality assessment), and aspects related to the presentation of results (e.g., whether study selection flowchart is presented, whether absolute effects are presented for dichotomous outcomes). Additionally, we will assess aspects of methodological quality including whether key review stages were conducted in duplicate and the extent to which appropriate conclusions are drawn (i.e., authors refrain from making recommendations). The methodological quality was assessed using select, objective criteria from the ROBIS tool to allow for reproducibility; however, no formal tool was used to assess the quality of the NMA as we are not aware of any such tool.
Results: This work is in progress. We screened 1251 records of which 171 were deemed eligible. We will present a table summarizing the characteristics of the eligible NMAs including descriptive statistics for the frequency at which different methodological criteria were met. A preliminary analysis of the methodological qualities of 67 included studies found that 64% completed duplicate screening (at all stages) and duplicate data extraction. In terms of quality assessments, nearly all NMAs (97%) presented their risk of bias assessment results and 48% completed certainty of the evidence assessments.
Conclusion: Our conclusions will describe the characteristics and methodological quality of dentistry NMAs. These findings will inform knowledge users of any important limitations of current dental NMAs which will allow for appropriate interpretation of current NMAs whilst also informing researchers of gaps to address.