Methodological Quality of Umbrella Reviews in Paediatric Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction and aims There has been a substantial increase in the number of umbrella reviews (URs) published in dentistry. To ensure their conclusions are accurate, these URs must be assessed for methodological quality. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the methodological quality of URs in paediatric dentistry, and to identify predictive factors associated with their methodological quality. Method A literature search was conducted to identify URs published in paediatric dentistry and their methodological quality assessed using an 11-item checklist. Further analysis examined the relationship between 6 predictive factors and the methodological quality scores for each UR (H-index, publication year, number of authors, JCR impact factor, a priori protocol registration, and continent of the corresponding author). Results Twenty-six URs were included. Item 1 (including the selection criteria), Item 7 (describe the included systematic reviews), and Item 8 (use a satisfactory tool for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality) were reported adequately in all URs. The majority (73%) of URs did not adequately report item 9 (sources of funding for the systematic reviews included in the UR) A priori protocol registration was the only significant predictor of quality. Conclusion URs published in paediatric dentistry exhibited a range of methodological flaws. A priori protocol registration was associated with greater quality. In the future, authors intending to conduct systematic reviews should take into account the deficiencies identified in this study. Clinical Relevance Authors who conduct URs in paediatric dentistry should consider the deficiencies identified in this study in order to improve their design, implementation and reporting and thus ensure their findings are valid.