Systematic reviews on the success of dental implants present low spin of information but may be better reported and interpreted: An overview of systematic reviews with meta‐analysis

Objective To estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews with metanalysis (SRMAs) in implant dentistry. Study Design and Setting Inclusion criteria were SRMAs of randomized clinical trials of implant dentistry on survival, success, or failure rates in humans, with no language restriction. Three databases were searched from inception to May 2021. Main outcomes were prevalence of spin (primary outcome) and completeness of reporting (secondary outcome) in abstracts and full texts. Results We identified 2481 SRMAs and 45 unique manuscripts were included. There was a low presence of spin in the abstracts and full text, except for adverse events, in which 51.1% (in the abstract) failed to mention any adverse event for summarized interventions. There was an adequate report of SRMAs in the full text except for prospective register (33.3% not reported). However, there was an incomplete report for most items in the abstract considering PRISMA-A checklist. Conclusion In general, the included SRMAs presented a (a) low prevalence of spin (except for adverse events in the abstract); (b) adequate completeness of reporting in the full text (except for prospective register); and (c) incomplete report for most items in the abstracts.