Assessment of Quality in Antimicrobial Calcium Phosphate Research (AQUACAP): A Systematic Review
Robert Kamphof, Jacobus Arts, Giuseppe Cama, Rob Nelissen, Bart Pijls

TL;DR
This paper introduces a quality checklist to evaluate research on antimicrobial calcium phosphate materials, identifying key areas for improvement in study design and reporting.
Contribution
The novel contribution is the creation and application of a quality checklist to assess and improve the reporting and methodological quality of antimicrobial calcium phosphate research.
Findings
Reporting quality averaged 18/32, with key areas needing improvement in data variability, study design rationales, and clinical relevance.
Methodological quality averaged 11/18, with suggestions to include positive controls, clinically relevant formulations, and toxicity tests.
Higher methodological quality was associated with more citations, but no link was found between quality and publication year.
Abstract
The effectiveness of antimicrobial ion-substituted calcium phosphate biomaterials has been investigated in numerous studies, but reporting guidelines and quality checklists are missing. A novel quality checklist was created for assessing reporting and methodological quality by experts of relevant disciplines. The checklist consisted of 20 items for reporting quality (maximum score 32) and 11 for methodological quality (maximum score 18). The checklist was subsequently implemented to assess the reporting and methodological quality of 58 studies in this field. Possible associations between study quality, year of publication and citations were investigated, and items for improvement were identified. Main items for improvement in reporting quality (average score 18/32) were reporting variability and statistics of data, reporting rationales for study design and the clinical relevance of the…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
