1. Repositório Institucional da UFMG
  2. Publicações Científicas e Culturais
  3. Artigo de Periódico
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/68087
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorPatrícia Paulettopt_BR
dc.creatorHelena Polmannpt_BR
dc.creatorJéssica Conti Réuspt_BR
dc.creatorJúlia Meller Dias de Oliveirapt_BR
dc.creatorDébora Chavespt_BR
dc.creatorKaryn Lehmkuhlpt_BR
dc.creatorCarla Massignanpt_BR
dc.creatorCristine Miron Stefanipt_BR
dc.creatorCarolina de Castro Martinspt_BR
dc.creatorCarlos Flores-Mirpt_BR
dc.creatorGraziela de Luca Cantopt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-06T18:53:21Z-
dc.date.available2024-05-06T18:53:21Z-
dc.date.issued2022-09-14-
dc.citation.spage1pt_BR
dc.citation.epage8pt_BR
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0802-5pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1476-5446pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1843/68087-
dc.description.resumoIntroduction: The number of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry published each year has grown considerably, and they have been essential in clinical decision-making and health policy. Objective: The objective is to critically appraise SRs of intervention in dentistry using the 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2' (AMSTAR 2) tool published within one year. Methods A search in the Medline/PubMed database was performed. The SRs were identified in two phases. The first phase identified SRs of interventions in dentistry by title and abstract. In the second phase, the full text was read, applying the eligibility criteria. Three calibrated reviewers methodologically assessed all SRs identified using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Data were analysed descriptively, and SRs were grouped according to methodological quality as moderate/high and low/critically low. A logistic regression model was applied to explore the associations between methodological quality and the study's characteristics. Results: Two hundred and twenty-two SRs were included. The methodological quality of the SRs included in this study were: critically low (56.8%), low (27.9%), moderate (14.4%) and high (0.9%), according to AMSTAR 2. There were no statistical differences between moderate/high and low/critically low methodological quality and publication year, continent, journal Impact Factor and dental speciality. Conclusion: Less than 1% of recently published SRs in dentistry were classified with high methodological quality. We hope that this study will alert researchers about the need to improve the methodological quality of SRs.pt_BR
dc.description.sponsorshipOutra Agênciapt_BR
dc.languageengpt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Minas Geraispt_BR
dc.publisher.countryBrasilpt_BR
dc.publisher.departmentFAO - DEPARTAMENTO DE ODONTOPEDIATRIA E ORTODONTIApt_BR
dc.publisher.initialsUFMGpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofevidence-based dentistry-
dc.rightsAcesso Restritopt_BR
dc.subjectSystematic reviewspt_BR
dc.subjectClinical decision-makingpt_BR
dc.subjectHealth policypt_BR
dc.subjectAMSTAR 2pt_BR
dc.subjectMethodological qualitypt_BR
dc.subject.otherSystematic reviewpt_BR
dc.subject.otherClinical decision-makingpt_BR
dc.subject.otherHealth policypt_BR
dc.subject.otherHealth evaluationpt_BR
dc.titleCritical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention in dentistry published between 2019-2020 using the AMSTAR 2 toolpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
dc.url.externahttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-022-0802-5pt_BR
Appears in Collections:Artigo de Periódico

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show simple item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.