Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in TMJ Disorders

Methods: All systematic reviews and meta-Analysis in TMJ Disorders published from 1996 to 2013 were retrieved using a Medline electronic search with supplementary hand searching. Quality of reporting was evaluated with a 12-item, modified PRISMA for abstracts statement checklist. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate examinations of statistical associations (P= 0.05).

Results: A total of 147 articles were screened and 81 RCT were included in this study. Most were published in either the Journal of Oral Rehabilitation (13,5 %) or the Journal of Orofacial Pain (13,5 %), and from United States of America (16 %) and Brazil (13,5 %). Most abstracts were structured, adequately reporting objectives and conclusions. Conversely, inadequate reporting of methods of the study, background, appraisal, included studies,  risk of bias: and data synthesis were observed.  Registration and funding of reviews were not reported in any of the included abstracts. Overall, the methodological quality of the systematic reviews  and meta-analysis was deemed limited.

Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the reporting quality of systematic reviews  and meta-analysis abstracts in temporomandibular disorders requires further improvement. Optimal reporting of systematic reviews  and meta-analysis abstracts should be encouraged, preferably by endorsing the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines.