The overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews including animal models can be heterogeneous. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews including animal models in dentistry as well as the overall confidence in the results of those systematic reviews. PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for systematic reviews including animal studies in dentistry published later than January 2010 until 18th of July 2022. Overall confidence in the results was assessed using a modified version of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. Checklist items were rated as yes, partial yes, no and not applicable. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations between systematic review characteristics and the overall adherence to the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The overall confidence in the results was calculated based on the number of critical and non-critical weaknesses presented in the AMSTAR-2 items and rated as high, moderate, low and critical low. Of initially 951 retrieved systematic reviews, 190 were included in the study. The overall confidence in the results was low in 43 (22.6%) and critically low in 133 (70.0%) systematic reviews. While some AMSTAR-2 items were regularly reported (e.g. conflict of interest, selection in duplicate), others were not (e.g. funding: n = 1; 0.5%). Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that the adherence scores of AMSTAR-2 was significantly associated with publication year, journal impact factor (IF), topic, and the use of tools to assess risk of bias (RoB) of the systematic reviews. Although the methodological quality of dental systematic reviews of animal models improved over the years, it is still suboptimal. The overall confidence in the results was mostly low or critically low. Systematic reviews, which were published later, published in a journal with a higher IF, focused on non-surgery topics, and used at least one tool to assess RoB correlated with greater adherence to the AMSTAR-2 guidelines.

中文翻译：

---

包括动物研究在内的牙科系统评价的方法学质量：横断面研究

对包括动物模型在内的系统评价结果的总体置信度可能存在差异。我们评估了系统评价的方法学质量，包括牙科动物模型，以及对这些系统评价结果的总体信心。检索了 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Scopus 中的系统评价，包括 2010 年 1 月以后至 2022 年 7 月 18 日发表的牙科动物研究。使用改进版的评估系统评价的 MeaSurement 工具 (AMSTAR) 对结果的总体置信度进行了评估-2）清单。检查表项目被评为是、部分是、否和不适用。线性回归分析用于调查系统评价特征与 AMSTAR-2 检查表总体遵守情况之间的关联。结果的总体置信度是根据 AMSTAR-2 项目中出现的关键和非关键弱点的数量计算的，并分为高、中、低和严重低。在最初检索到的 951 篇系统评价中，有 190 篇被纳入本研究。43 项系统评价 (22.6%) 的结果总体可信度较低，133 项系统评价 (70.0%) 的结果严重低。虽然一些 AMSTAR-2 项目会定期报告（例如利益冲突、重复选择），但其他项目则不会（例如资金：n = 1；0.5%）。多变量线性回归分析显示，AMSTAR-2 的依从性分数与发表年份、期刊影响因子 (IF)、主题以及系统评价偏倚风险 (RoB) 评估工具的使用显着相关。尽管动物模型的牙科系统评价的方法学质量多年来有所提高，但仍然不够理想。对结果的总体信心大多较低或极低。随后发表的系统评价发表在 IF 较高的期刊上，重点关注非手术主题，并使用至少一种工具来评估与更好地遵守 AMSTAR-2 指南相关的 RoB。