Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics

  • Research
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for NMA checklist.

Methods

The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta‐analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393–404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.

Results

All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the “geometry of the network” and “the summary of network geometry” with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.

Conclusion

A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.

Clinical relevance

None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264-269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

  2. Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P (2013) Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. J Fam Med Prim Care 2:9–14. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mills EJ, Bansback N, Ghement I et al (2011) Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity. Clin Epidemiol 3:193. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S16526

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Jansen JP, Naci H (2013) Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med 11:159. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-159

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kiefer C, Sturtz S, Bender R (2015) Indirect comparisons and network meta-analyses. Dtsch Arztebl Int 112:803–808. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2015.0803

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Buti J, Glenny AM, Worthington HV, Nieri M, Baccini M (2011) Network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: direct and indirect treatment comparisons. Eur J Oral Implantol 4:55–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lumley T (2002) Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 21:2313–2324. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162:777–784. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Higgins JP (2014) Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9:e99682. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099682

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Penedones A, Alves C, Batel-Marques F (2019) Recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews in medical literature: a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol 19:234. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0870-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang F, Wang H, Zou J et al (2018) Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine. Medicine 97:e13052. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Yuan T, Xiong J, Wang X et al (2021) The Quality of Methodological and Reporting in Network Meta-Analysis of Acupuncture and Moxibustion: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Evid Based Complement Altern Med 11:2672173. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2672173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bae K, Shin IS (2021) Critical evaluation of reporting quality of network meta-analyses assessing the effectiveness of acupuncture. Complement Ther Clini Pract 45:101459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2021.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee DW, Shin IS (2018) Critical quality evaluation of network meta-analyses in dental care. J Dent 75:7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.05.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nagendrababu V, Faggion CM Jr, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM (2022) Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. Int Endod J 55:393–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lin PY, Chen HS, Wang YH, Tu YK (2014) Primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent 42:1060–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB (1997) Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126:376–380. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C et al (2017) Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev 6:131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C et al (2017) Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study. Syst Rev 6:117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0507-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, Gøtzsche PC, Lasserson T, Tovey D, PRISMA for Abstracts Group (2013) PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med 10:e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Als-Nielson B (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290:921–928. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.7.921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L (2017). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:MR000033. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3

  25. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Tsesis I et al (2019) PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology. Int Endod J 52:1096–1107. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ Mar 29:372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160

  27. Salanti G, Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JP (2008) Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Ann Intern Med 148:544–553. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-7-200804010-00011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (2022) Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane. http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 12th May 2022

  29. Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Li T, Higgins JPT, Salanti G (2022) Chapter 11: Undertaking network meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane. http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 12th May 2022

  30. Khan KS, Daya S, Jadad AR (1996) The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. Arch Intern Med 156:661–6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8629879/

  31. Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, Daw J, Andes S, Eldessouki R, Salanti G (2014) Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health 17:157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE

    Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu & Vellore Kannan Gopinath

  2. Hamad Dental Center, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar

    Srinivasan Narasimhan

  3. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany

    Clovis M. Faggion Jr

  4. Private Practice, Tamilnadu, India

    Lalli Dharmarajan

  5. School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Pullikotil Shaju Jacob

  6. School of Dentistry, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Paul M. H. Dummer

Authors
  1. Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Srinivasan Narasimhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clovis M. Faggion Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lalli Dharmarajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pullikotil Shaju Jacob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vellore Kannan Gopinath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paul M. H. Dummer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: VN, CF, PD.

Methodology: VN, SN, LD, CF, SP, VG, PD.

Writing original draft: VN, SN, LD, CF, SP, VG, PD.

Writing- Review and Editing: VN, SN, LD, CF, SP, VG, PD.

All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest associated with this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nagendrababu, V., Narasimhan, S., Faggion, C.M. et al. Reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. Clin Oral Invest 27, 3437–3445 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-04948-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-04948-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation