ABSTRACT
Este estudo teve o objetivo de avaliar a qualidade metodológica e risco de viés das revisões sistemáticas e metanálises de estudos de intervenção (randomizados e não randomizados) na área de Periodontia. Buscas foram realizadas nas bases de dados: MedLine (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library e LILACS para artigos de revisão sistemática, com ou sem metanálise, indexados no ano 2019 a 2020. Adicionalmente, foram realizadas buscas na literatura cinzenta, nas referências dos artigos selecionados e nos principais periódicos de área. As avaliações da qualidade metodológica e risco de viés foram realizadas através das ferramentas AMSTAR 2 e ROBIS, respectivamente. Os dados foram importados para o software IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows versão 25. Análises descritivas de frequência relativa e absoluta foram realizadas nas variáveis categóricas. Análises descritivas de média, desvio padrão e mínima/máxima foram realizadas nas variáveis contínuas. Cento e vinte e sete revisões sistemáticas cumpriram os critérios de elegibilidade e foram avaliadas. Na avaliação geral pelo ROBIS, 113 (90,6%) das revisões apresentaram alto risco de viés, 11 (7,1%) baixo risco de viés e 3 (2,4%) risco de viés indefinido. Segundo o AMSTAR 2, a qualidade metodológica foi alta em 13 revisões (10,2%), moderada em 1 (0,8%), baixa em 31 (24,4%) e criticamente baixa em 82 (64,6%). No geral, a qualidade das revisões sistemáticas de estudos de intervenção na área de Periodontia foi considerada baixa. Sugere-se que os pesquisadores que pretendam realizar revisões sistemáticas utilizem ao menos um dos dois instrumentos no processo de desenvolvimento do protocolo da revisão. Este simples processo, se respeitado e seguido em conjunto o PRISMA, tem o potencial de resultar na criação de protocolos mais completos e, consequentemente, em revisões de melhor qualidade.
This study aimed to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of intervention studies (randomized and nonrandomized studies) in periodontics. The following databases were searched: MedLine (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and LILACS for systematic review articles, with or without meta-analysis, indexed between 2019 to 2020. Additionally, we searched on grey literature, and a manually searched the references of selected articles and main journals in the area. AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools were used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias, respectively. Data were imported into the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 25 software. Categorical variables were descriptively analyzed by relative and absolute frequency. Continuous variables were analyzed by mean, standard deviation, and minimum/maximum. One-hundred twenty-seven systematic reviews were included and were evaluated. In the overall ROBIS assessment, 113 (90.6%) were at high risk of bias, 11 (7.1%) were at low risk of bias, and 3 (2.4%) had unclear risk of bias. According to AMSTAR 2, 13 reviews (10.2%) had high methodological quality, 1 (0.8%) moderate, 31 (24.4%) low and 82 (64.6%) critically low. Overall, the quality of systematic reviews of intervention studies in the field of periodontics was low. Systematic review authors could use at least one between both tools before creating the study protocol. This simple process, if followed together with PRISMA, has the potential aid authors in the creation of more complete protocols and, consequently, better quality reviews.
Subject(s)
Periodontics , Meta-Analysis , Systematic Review , MethodsABSTRACT
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Kuntai Capsules in the treatment of perimenopausal syndrome. Systematic reviews on Kuntai Capsules in the treatment of perimenopausal syndrome were retrieved from Chinese and English databases from database establishment to August 31, 2020. AMSTER-2 scale, GRADE scale and ROBIS tools were used respectively to evaluate the methodological quality, evidence quality level and bias risk of the finally included systematic reviews. A total of 6 systematic reviews with 28 outcome indicators were included. The results of AMSTER-2 methodological quality assessment showed that one of the six systematic reviews was of low quality, and the other five were of extremely low quality. GRADE scale showed that 28 clinical outcome indicators were evaluated, three of which were intermediate-level ones, and the rest were low-level or very low-level ones. Two evidences of the three intermediate evidences were total efficiency, and the other intermediate evidence was Kupperman score. ROBIS bias risk assessment showed all the included studies were of high risk. The results showed that, Kuntai Capsules were effective in the treatment of perimenopausal symptoms, such as hot flashes and sweating. The improvement of E_2 level was not as good as that in the menopause hormone therapy group, but the incidence of adverse reactions was lower than that in the menopause hormone therapy group. However, the quality of evidence needs to be improved due to the low quality of methodology and high risk of bias. It is suggested that systematic review and reasonable design should be carried out in the future, and attention should be paid to the registration of research schemes. In addition, the research reports shall be prepared according to PRISMA statement.