LAUSR

Introduction: The objectives of this review were to assess the methodological quality of published meta‐analyses related to endodontics using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool and to provide a follow‐up to previously published reviews. Methods: Three electronic databases were searched for eligible studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria: Embase via Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus. The electronic search was amended by a hand search of 6 dental journals (International Endodontic Journal; Journal of Endodontics; Australian Endodontic Journal; Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology; Endodontics and Dental Traumatology; and Journal of Dental Research). The searches were conducted to include articles published after July 2009, and the deadline for inclusion of the meta‐analyses was November 30, 2016. The AMSTAR assessment tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of all included studies. Results: A total of 36 reports of meta‐analyses were included. The overall quality of the meta‐analyses reports was found to be medium, with an estimated mean overall AMSTAR score of 7.25 (95% confidence interval, 6.59–7.90). The most poorly assessed areas were providing an a priori design, the assessment of the status of publication, and publication bias. Conclusions: In recent publications in the field of endodontics, the overall quality of the reported meta‐analyses is medium according to AMSTAR. HighlightsThe methodological quality of published meta‐analyses related to endodontics was assessed using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool.The overall quality of reports of meta‐analyses in endodontics was found to be medium, with a mean score of 7.25 (95% confidence interval, 6.59–7.90) according to the overall AMSTAR scoring.There are clear needs for authors' self‐evaluation and incorporation of the AMSTAR checklist for the review process before publication.