Abstract
Background: Critical analysis of published systematic reviews may help in understanding their strengths and weaknesses and identifying areas that need improvement. Short dental implants are becoming an important addition to the existing dental armamentarium. The aim of this overview is to analyze the quality of published systematic reviews focused on short dental implants using established checklists such as the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR).
Methods: A search was conducted to retrieve reviews that used a systematic approach in article selection focusing on short dental implants in humans. Based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 10 reviews were selected. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of the selected reviews using AMSTAR and the checklist proposed by Glenny et al. in 2003. Each article was given a total score based on the number of criteria that it fulfilled.
Results: Six reviews satisfied <= 4 of the 11 AMSTAR items, and only two reviews satisfied nine of the 11 items. This study shows that published systematic reviews on short dental implants exhibit significant structural and methodological variability. Quality assessment using the Glenny checklist further confirmed the variability in the way systematic reviews were conducted and/or reported. A high correlation was observed between the two checklists' scores.
Conclusions: Uniformity in the way systematic reviews are conducted and/or reported will increase the validity and clinical applicability of future reviews.