Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1801304
Review Article

Critical Analysis of Reporting Quality of Network Meta-Analyses in Periodontology and Implantology

Heba Mahmoud Ashi
1   Department of Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
,
Zohaib Khurshid 
2   Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Implantology, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
3   Center of Excellence for Regenerative Dentistry, Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The increasing recognition of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in dentistry, particularly in periodontology and implantology, lacks assessed reporting quality. To address this, our study will undertake a systematic review of previously reported NMAs. Researchers conducted an electronic search in Web of Science and Scopus to identify NMAs across all dentistry journals. Two independent investigators selected studies, extracted data, and assessed reporting quality using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for NMA (PRISMA-NMA) checklist with 32 items. Each “yes” response earned 1 point, and “no” responses received 0 points, yielding an overall reporting quality score. In total, 39 NMAs were included in this study. The NMAs were published between 2010 and October 2024, with most of them published in 2022 (25%). Most of the NMAs employed the PRISMA-NMA guidelines (47%) and have been published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (53%). The overall reporting quality of the included NMAs ranged between 87.5 and 100% (i.e., high quality of reporting [≥ 75th %]), with 5 NMAs reporting all 27 items of the PRISMA-NMA statement. The limitations, presentation of network structure (results), funding, and objectives (methods) were reported in 97, 94, 81, and 78% of the NMAs, respectively. The least reported items were the protocol registration and the summary of network geometry, which were reported in 53% of the NMAs. All the remaining items were reported in all 39 NMAs. The reporting quality of the NMAs published related to periodontology and implantology was high. However, some deficiencies were revealed associated with the reporting quality of the PRISMA-NMA items, including protocol registration, formulation of the research question based on the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format, and summarization of the network geometry.

Keywords

periodontology - implantology - systematic reviews - network meta-analysis - quality analysis and evidence-based dentistry

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process

During the preparation of this work Z.K. and H.M.A. used [Paraphraser Tool/ QuillBot AI] to paraphrase, improve the readability, and enhance the language. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.


Authors' Contribution

H.M.A. was responsible for establishing a topic, conducting a literature search, extracting and analyzing data, interpreting results, updating reference lists, writing the manuscript, and revising it. Z.K. contributed to the study's design, data extraction and analysis, data evaluation, results interpretation, and article review. All authors have critically examined and approved the final draft, and they are accountable for the manuscript's content and similarity index.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
12 March 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126 (05) 376-380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Volpp KG, Das A. Comparative effectiveness–thinking beyond medication A versus medication B. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (04) 331-333
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Catalá-López F, Tobías A, Cameron C, Moher D, Hutton B. Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction. Rheumatol Int 2014; 34 (11) 1489-1496
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Miroshnychenko A, Ibrahim S, Azab M. et al. Acute postoperative pain due to dental extraction in the adult population: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2023; 102 (04) 391-401
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ma KS-K, Wang L-T, Blatz MB. Efficacy of adhesive strategies for restorative dentistry: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials over 12 months of follow-up. J Prosthodont Res 2023; 67 (01) 35-44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Charlotte Höfer K, Graf I, Adams A. et al. Bacteraemia of oral origin in children-a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Oral Dis 2022; 28 (07) 1783-1801
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Thomassen TMJA, Van der Weijden FGA, Slot DE. The efficacy of powered toothbrushes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Dent Hyg 2022; 20 (01) 3-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Motiwala MA, Gul M, Ghafoor R. Effect of different access cavity designs on fracture toughness of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Evid Based Dent 2022;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Buti J, Glenny A-M, Worthington HV, Nieri M, Baccini M. Network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: direct and indirect treatment comparisons. Eur J Oral Implantology 2011; 4 (01) 55-62
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Egger M, Salanti G. Continuously updated network meta-analysis and statistical monitoring for timely decision-making. Stat Methods Med Res 2018; 27 (05) 1312-1330
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P. Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ 2013; 347: f3675
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Donegan S, Williamson P, Gamble C, Tudur-Smith C. Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One 2010; 5 (11) e11054
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Churchill R, Barbui C. Meta-Analysis of New Generation Antidepressants Study group. Validity of indirect comparisons in meta-analysis. Lancet 2007; 369 (9558) 270-271 , author reply 271
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Nagendrababu V, Narasimhan S, Faggion Jr CM. et al. Reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in endodontics. Clin Oral Investig 2023; 27 (07) 3437-3445
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Petropoulou M, Nikolakopoulou A, Veroniki A-A. et al. Bibliographic study showed improving statistical methodology of network meta-analyses published between 1999 and 2015. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 82: 20-28
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Lee D-W, Shin I-S. Critical quality evaluation of network meta-analyses in dental care. J Dent 2018; 75: 7-11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Penedones A, Alves C, Batel-Marques F. Recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews in medical literature: a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19 (01) 234
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM. et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (160) n160
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM. et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162 (11) 777-784
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Tian J, Zhang J, Ge L, Yang K, Song F. The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 85: 50-58
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Li J, Gao W, Punja S. et al. Reporting quality of N-of-1 trials published between 1985 and 2013: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 76: 57-64
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Chambrone L, Barootchi S, Avila-Ortiz G. Efficacy of biologics in root coverage and gingival augmentation therapy: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2022; 93 (12) 1771-1802
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Martins JR, Wagner TP, Vallim AC. et al. Comparison of the efficacy of different techniques to seal the alveolus during alveolar ridge preservation: meta-regression and network meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2022; 49 (07) 694-705
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Ye L, Mashrah MA, Ge L. et al. Network meta-analysis of platelet-rich fibrin in periodontal intrabony defects. J Oral Pathol Med 2023; 52 (03) 206-215
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Wu XY, Shi JY, Buti J, Lai HC, Tonetti MS. Buccal bone thickness and mid-facial soft tissue recession after various surgical approaches for immediate implant placement: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of controlled trials. J Clin Periodontol 2023; 50 (04) 533-546
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Tavelli L, Chen CJ, Barootchi S, Kim DM. Efficacy of biologics for the treatment of periodontal infrabony defects: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2022; 93 (12) 1803-1826
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Tu YK, Needleman I, Chambrone L, Lu HK, Faggion Jr CM. A Bayesian network meta-analysis on comparisons of enamel matrix derivatives, guided tissue regeneration and their combination therapies. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39 (03) 303-314
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Wang Y, Chen N, Guo K. et al. Reporting and methodological quality of acupuncture network meta-analyses could be improved: an evidence mapping. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 153: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Bae K, Shin I-S. Critical evaluation of reporting quality of network meta-analyses assessing the effectiveness of acupuncture. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2021; 45: 101459
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Yuan T, Xiong J, Wang X. et al. The quality of methodological and reporting in network meta-analysis of acupuncture and moxibustion: a cross-sectional survey. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2021; 2021: 2672173
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Yang F, Wang H, Zou J. et al. Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (47) e13052
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Cho S-H, Shin I-S. Evaluation of the reporting standard guidelines of network meta-analyses in physical therapy: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel) 2022; 10 (12) 2371
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Zarin W, Veroniki AA, Nincic V. et al. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review. BMC Med 2017; 15 (01) 3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Tian J, Li L, Zhao Y, Ge L. Writing and reporting of network meta-analysis. Chin J Drug Eval 2013; 30: 333
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 36 Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2007; 7: 16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PMH. Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. Int Endod J 2022; 55 (05) 393-404
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Kang T, Zou S, Weng C. Pretraining to recognise PICO elements from randomised controlled trial literature. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019; 264: 188-192
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995; 123 (03) A12-A13
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2007; 7: 16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Chang SM, Slutsky J. Debunking myths of protocol registration. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Moher D, Booth A, Stewart L. How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO. BJOG 2014; 121 (07) 784-786
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Dos Santos MBF, Agostini BA, Bassani R, Pereira GKR, Sarkis-Onofre R. Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020; 20 (01) 57
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S. et al. Searching for and selecting studies. Cochrane Handbook Syst Rev Intervent 2019; 23: 67-107
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (05) 491-501
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 100: 103-110
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC. et al. 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 2014; 17 (02) 157-173
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Tonin FS, Borba HH, Leonart LP. et al. Methodological quality assessment of network meta-analysis of drug interventions: implications from a systematic review. Int J Epidemiol 2019; 48 (02) 620-632
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar