How are meta-analyses being conducted and reported in dentistry?

• Main Authors: Leticia Tainá de Oliveira Lemes (Author), Lara Dotto (Author), Bernardo Antonio Agostini (Author), Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira (Author), Rafael Sarkis-Onofre (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2021-02-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1677-3225; 10.20396/bjos.v20i00.8661701
• Keywords: oral health; systematic reviews as topic; research report; Dentistry; RK1-715
• Source: Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, Vol 20, Pp e211701-e211701 (2021)

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate how meta-analyses are conducted and reported in dentistry. Methods: We conducted a search to identify dentistry-related Systematic Reviews (SRs) indexed in PubMed in 2017 (from January 01 until December 31) and published in the English language. We included only SRs reporting at least one meta-analysis. The study selection followed the 4-phase flow set forth in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA), and it was independently conducted by two researchers. Data extraction was performed by one of three reviewers, and data related to conducting and reporting of the meta-analysis were collected. Descriptive data analysis was performed summarizing frequencies for categorical items or median and interquartile range for continuous data. Results: We included 214 SRs with meta-analyses. Most of the studies reported in the title that a meta-analysis was conducted. We identified three critical flaws in the included studies: Ninety (90) meta-analyses (43.1%) did not specify the primary outcome; most of the meta-analyses reported that a measure of statistical heterogeneity was used to justify the use of a fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analysis model (n=114, 58.5%); and a great part did not assess publication bias (n=106, 49.5%). Conclusion: We identified deficiencies in the reporting and conduct of meta-analysis in dentistry, suggesting that there is room for improvement. Educational approaches are necessary to improve the quality of such analyses and to avoid biased and imprecise results.