Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Short Dental Implants

2013 ◽  
Vol 84 (6) ◽  
pp. 758-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satheesh Elangovan ◽  
Hani H. Mawardi ◽  
Nadeem Y. Karimbux
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Systematic Reviews

Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding immediate placement of dental implants into infected sites: An overview

2017 ◽  
Vol 117 (5) ◽  
pp. 601-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olavo B. de Oliveira-Neto ◽  
Fabiano Timbó Barbosa ◽  
Célio Fernando de Sousa-Rodrigues ◽  
Fernando José C. de Lima
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Immediate Placement

scholarly journals Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Reema Harrison ◽  
Benjamin Jones ◽  
Peter Gardner ◽  
Rebecca Lawton
Keyword(s):  
Health Services Research ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Appraisal Tool

Abstract Background In the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research. Methods Secondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD (n=197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses. Results Key limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research. Conclusion Our findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on vertical bone regeneration

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. Saletta ◽  
J.J. Garcia ◽  
J.M.M. Caramês ◽  
H. Schliephake ◽  
D.N. da Silva Marques
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Systematic Reviews

scholarly journals Systematic review protocol exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wellbeing of general practitioners

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Jefferson ◽  
Su Golder ◽  
Veronica Dale ◽  
Holly Essex ◽  
Elizabeth McHugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Impact

Background Over recent years chronic stress and burnout have been reported by doctors working in general practice in the UK NHS and internationally. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed general practitioners working lives; adding potential pressures from avoiding infection and addressing pent-up demand for care, but also changing processes such as rapidly taking up remote consultations. To date, there has been a focus on exploring the impact of the pandemic on the wellbeing of hospital clinicians. No registered systematic reviews currently focus on exploring the impact of the pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of general practitioners. Aims and objectives To synthesise the current international evidence base exploring the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health and wellbeing of general practitioners, and which factors are associated with their reported mental health and wellbeing during the pandemic. Methods In this paper we report a systematic review protocol, following PRISMA guidance. In our search strategy we will identify primary research studies or systematic reviews exploring the mental health and wellbeing of general practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic in four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo and Medrxiv) and Google Scholar. We will hand-search reference lists and grey literature. Two reviewers will undertake all stages including study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, with arbitration by a third reviewer where necessary. We will use standardised quality assessment tools to ensure transparency and reduce bias in quality assessment. Depending on the quality of included studies, we may undertake a sensitivity analysis by excluding studies from narrative synthesis that are rated as low quality using the checklists. We will describe the findings across studies using narrative thematic data synthesis, and if sufficiently homogenous data are identified, we will pool quantitative findings through meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Impact of Adjustment for Quality on Results of Metaanalyses of Diagnostic Accuracy

2007 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 164-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariska Leeflang ◽  
Johannes Reitsma ◽  
Rob Scholten ◽  
Anne Rutjes ◽  
Marcello Di Nisio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Poor Reporting

Abstract Background: We examined whether and to what extent different strategies of defining and incorporating quality of included studies affect the results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy. Methods: We evaluated the methodological quality of 487 diagnostic-accuracy studies in 30 systematic reviews with the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies) checklist. We applied 3 strategies that varied both in the definition of quality and in the statistical approach to incorporate the quality-assessment results into metaanalyses. We compared magnitudes of diagnostic odds ratios, widths of their confidence intervals, and changes in a hypothetical clinical decision between strategies. Results: Following 2 definitions of quality, we concluded that only 70 or 72 of 487 studies were of “high quality”. This small number was partly due to poor reporting of quality items. None of the strategies for accounting for differences in quality led systematically to accuracy estimates that were less optimistic than ignoring quality in metaanalyses. Limiting the review to high-quality studies considerably reduced the number of studies in all reviews, with wider confidence intervals as a result. In 18 reviews, the quality adjustment would have resulted in a different decision about the usefulness of the test. Conclusions: Although reporting the results of quality assessment of individual studies is necessary in systematic reviews, reader wariness is warranted regarding claims that differences in methodological quality have been accounted for. Obstacles for adjusting for quality in metaanalyses are poor reporting of design features and patient characteristics and the relatively low number of studies in most diagnostic reviews.

Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability

2018 ◽  
Vol 99 ◽  
pp. 24-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita Banzi ◽  
Michela Cinquini ◽  
Marien Gonzalez-Lorenzo ◽  
Valentina Pecoraro ◽  
Matteo Capobussi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Versus Risk

scholarly journals Development and Validation of a Nutrition-Specific Set of Tools to Assess the Quality of Nutrition Studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 1377-1377
Author(s):  
Karima Benkhedda ◽  
Stephen Brooks ◽  
Linda Greene-Finestone ◽  
Shannon Kelly ◽  
Amanda MacFarlane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Quality Appraisal ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Perfect Agreement ◽  
Development And Validation

Abstract Objectives To develop and validate a set of 3 quality assessment instruments (QAls) for evaluating the quality of nutrition studies, for each of the commonly used study designs: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) prospective cohort, and (3) case-control studies. Methods The QAI development and validation process included 8 steps: 1) identify and evaluate existing general QAls for adaptation with nutrition-specific quality appraisal items; 2) scan the literature to identify nutrition-specific quality appraisal issues; 3) generate nutrition-specific items to be added to each of the general QAIs, adapt existing guidance for general items for nutrition applications and develop guidance for added nutrition items; 4) review, by two experts in clinical and population nutrition, of the modified general QAIs with added nutrition-specific items and guidance; 5) assess reliability and validity of the QAI for each study design; 6) improve the usability and feasibility, of the QAIs by considering feedback from the validation exercise to refine the wording of the guidance; 7) develop a worksheet to help evaluate, a priori, topic-specific methodology to address risk of bias; and  8) validate the final QAIs using five peer-reviewed studies identified from published systematic reviews with reported quality assessment. Agreement and reliability were determined for each QAI. Results Results of the validation show good to perfect agreement among evaluators for the overall study rating and across domains. When compared to the study quality assessment reported in the systematic review, nutrition- specific items had the greatest impact on study ratings, generally resulting in a downgrade of the overall rating. Conclusions A set of nutrition-specific QAls were developed to assess the quality and robustness of nutrition studies. These tools incorporate general quality issues of study design and conduct, as well as address recognised nutrition study-specific issues. They will improve consistency in how nutrition studies are assessed particularly in nutrition-related systematic reviews. This will contribute to the overall quality of assessment of diet and Funding Sources This work was supported by Health Canada.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document