Methodological quality of network meta-analysis in dentistry: a meta-research

• Main Authors: Anelise Fernandes MONTAGNER (Author), Patricia Daniela Melchiors ANGST (Author), Daniela Prócida RAGGIO (Author), Françoise Helène VAN DE SANDE (Author), Tamara Kerber TEDESCO (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2023-07-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1807-3107; 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0062
• Keywords: Network Meta-Analysis; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Translational Science, Biomedica; Dentistry; RK1-715
• Source: Brazilian Oral Research, Vol 37 (2023)

Abstract This meta-research aimed to provide an overview of the methodological quality and risk of bias of network meta-analyses (NMA) in dentistry. Searches for NMA of randomized clinical trials with clinical outcomes in dentistry were performed in databases up to January 2022. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, selected full texts, and extracted the data. The adherence to PRISMA-NMA reporting guideline, the AMSTAR-2 methodological quality tool, and the ROBIS risk of bias tool were assessed in the studies. Correlation between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results was also investigated. Sixty-two NMA studies were included and presented varied methodological quality. According to AMSTAR-2, half of the NMA presented moderate quality (n = 32; 51.6%). The adherence to PRISMA-NMA also varied. Only 36 studies (58.1%) prospectively registered the protocol. Other issues lacking of reporting were data related were data related to the NMA geometry and the assessment of results consistency, and the evaluation of risk of bias across the studies. ROBIS assessment showed a high risk of bias mainly for domains 1 (study eligibility criteria) and 2 (identification and selection of studies). Correlation coefficients between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results showed moderate correlation (rho < 0.6). Overall, NMA studies in dentistry were of moderate quality and at high risk of bias in several domains, especially study selection. Future reviews should be better planned and conducted and have higher compliance with reporting and quality assessment tools.