Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews of the Relationship Between Periodontal and Systemic Diseases |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Division of Periodontics, International Centre for Oral-Systemic Health, College of Dentistry, University of Manitoba, Canada;2. Division of Continuing Professional Development, College of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Canada;3. Casey Hein & Associates, USA;4. Division of Periodontics, Department of Dental Diagnostics & Surgical Sciences and Department of Oral Biology, College of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectivesThe aims of this article are to identify all the published systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) that studied the relationship between periodontal and systemic diseases and to assess their quality using 2 scales (the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire OQAQ] and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews AMSTAR] checklist).MethodsFor SRs and MAs to be included, they should have investigated one of the following systemic diseases: pulmonary conditions, cardiac conditions, endocrine conditions, cancer, blood disorders, psychological conditions, anxiety, depression, mood disorders, and several other diseases. Two investigators screened MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The tools used to evaluate quality were the AMSTAR scale and OQAQ. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018102208).ResultsThe search strategy found 691 unique articles, 42 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Diabetes mellitus was the most investigated disease (14 out of 42 studies), followed by obesity (11 studies) and cardiovascular diseases (5 studies). A total of 40 reviews reported on the characteristics of included studies, and, as per the AMSTAR scale, 39 reviews had an a priori design. The number of reviews that fulfilled the status of publication criterion was the lowest (7 reviews only), followed by the number used in the assessment of publication bias (11 reviews). The number of high-quality reviews was higher with the OQAQ than with the AMSTAR checklist (33 vs 25 studies), but the AMSTAR showed a higher number of medium-quality reviews than the OQAQ (14 vs 6 studies). Both showed the same number of low-quality reviews.ConclusionsHigh-quality SRs and MAs are crucial to understanding the relationship between systemic and periodontal diseases. Medical practitioners must be able to inform patients about oral health and specific periodontal health concerns. |
| |
| Keywords: | Periodontal disease Level of evidence Quality of publications Systemic disease |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
