Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality

Sideri, Sofia; Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.; Eliades, Theodore

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.003

Cited by 218 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The strengths of this systematic review consist of the registration of its a priori protocol in PROSPERO (Sideri, Papageorgiou, & Eliades, ), its exhaustive literature search, its improved analytical methods (Veroniki et al., ), the use of the GRADE approach (Guyatt et al., ) to assess the quality of the meta‐evidence and the transparent provision of the study's data (Naenni et al., ). Additionally, only randomized and prospective non‐randomized comparative studies were included in this systematic review, which are less biased than retrospective non‐randomized studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Naenni

Lim

Papageorgiou

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

Self Cite

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The aim of the current systematic review was to critically appraise evidence from randomized and prospective non‐randomized comparative clinical trials about the efficacy of lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement and their outcome regarding bone width gain. Materials and Methods Eight databases were searched until May 2018 for randomized and prospective non‐randomized comparative trials on lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement. After elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction and risk‐of‐bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, random‐effects meta‐analyses of mean differences (MD) or relative risks (RR) and their 95% CIs were performed, followed by subgroup, meta‐regression and sensitivity analyses. Results Overall, 25 trials (16 randomized/9 non‐randomized) were identified, which included a total of 553 patients (42.2% male; mean age of 43.9 years). In these included studies and populations, various modalities for primary lateral bone augmentation rendered implant placement feasible. Small discrepancies were found between overall clinical and radiographic gain (pooled gains of 3.45 ± 1.18 mm versus 2.90 ± 0.83 mm, respectively), but were not statistically significant. Bone width gain was significantly inversely associated with baseline bone width (pooled effect: −0.35 mm/mm; 95% CI: −0.63 to −0.07 mm; p = 0.01). Additionally, % graft resorption was associated with patient age (36%/year, 95% CI: −0.62 to −0.11 mm; p = 0.01). The presence of xenograft added to autologous graft led to less resorption compared to autologous graft alone (MD: 1.06 mm; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.92 mm; p = 0.01). Barrier membrane did not yield significant difference in terms of bone width gain (MD: −0.33 mm; 95% CI: −2.24 to 1.58 mm; p > 0.05) and graft resorption (MD: 0.84 mm; 95% CI: −1.42 to 3.09 mm; p > 0.05). However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate due to bias and imprecision. Conclusions Initially smaller bone dimensions are associated with favours larger bone width gain, which indicates that a severe lateral bone deficiency can be effectively augmented applying primary lateral bone augmentation. Both Patients’ age and recipient site (maxilla or mandible) seem to influence graft resorption. The addition of a xenograft can be helpful in reducing graft resorption. Existing evidence from randomized and prospective non‐randomized trials on humans indicates that lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement can successfully increase bone width. There are some indications that patient‐related, site‐related, and technique‐related characteristics might influence the amount of gained bone width, but the quality of evidence is for the most part hampered by the small number of existing studies and methodological limitations that might lead to bias.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Naenni

Lim

Papageorgiou

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

Self Cite

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PROSPERO entries are formatted to reflect the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in SRs and meta-analyses [7]. Some evidence suggests that registration in PROSPERO is associated with higher quality of the published review [8]. We attempted to evaluate the methodological standards of urological SR protocols registered in PROSPERO.We performed a systematic search for all urology-related SR protocols registered in PROSPERO up to December 2017 using a predefined set of urological keywords.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The registered reviews are published online to help potential authors be aware of the topics that are currently under review, eliminating duplication of reviews. To add value to this, a recent study has found that the Orthodontics SRs registered with PROSPERO had 6.6% higher AMSTAR score compared to non‐registered SRs . Despite availability of this free public registry for registration of SRs, only 10 out of 24 articles in this review had either registered or obtained protocol approval by the Ethics Board prior to beginning the SR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…To add value to this, a recent study has found that the Orthodontics SRs registered F I G U R E 2 Percentage score of individual items of the Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) as the quality assessment tool with PROSPERO had 6.6% higher AMSTAR score compared to non-registered SRs. 46 Despite availability of this free public registry for registration of SRs, only 10 out of 24 articles in this review had either registered or obtained protocol approval by the Ethics Board prior to beginning the SR. Although it is desirable to register the SR in a T A B L E 3 Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) scores based on characteristics of the included Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses public registry, when contacted, two authors responded that they had obtained ethics clearance for the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical appraisal of methodological quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis in Paediatric Dentistry journals

Jayaraman

Nagendrababu

Pulikkotil

et al. 2018

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality

Abstract: Although only a small percentage of orthodontic systematic reviews was registered a priori in PROSPERO, registered reviews were of higher quality than nonregistered reviews.

Cited by 218 publications

References 34 publications

Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Quality of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO

Critical appraisal of methodological quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis in Paediatric Dentistry journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About