THE REPORTING QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ABSTRACTS IN LEADING GENERAL DENTAL JOURNALS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

Reporting of Search Strategy Among Systematic Reviews in Leading Dental Specialty Journals: A Research-On-Research Study

BACKGROUND

Literature searching is one of the main determinants of a systematic review (SR)'s reliability. Thus, adequate reporting of search strategy is essential for the critical appraisal of SRs and evidence-based practice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals, and to identify factors associated with quality of reporting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six leading dental journals with the highest 5-year impact factors in their respective specialty were included. A hand search was undertaken to identify SRs published between 2017 and 2022. Full texts were reviewed by two authors to identify eligible SRs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 15-item checklist based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were then performed.

SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION

A total of 152 reviews were included and assessed.

RESULTS

As for information sources, only 'citation searching' was adequately reported in most reviews 110 (72.4%). Only 23 (15.1%) of the included reviews clearly reported search strategies. Information about peer review was provided in only 10 reviews (6.6%). Only 91 (59.9%) of the included reviews documented the total records clearly. According to multivariable regression analysis, industrial funding (p = 0.012), registration (p = 0.013) and librarian involvement (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals is suboptimal. Researchers, librarians, reviewers and journal editors in dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-S checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of search strategy in SRs.

THE USAGE AND REPORTING OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IN ORTHODONTICS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and analyze the usage and reporting of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) within systematic reviews (SRs) published in 5 leading orthodontic journals between 2015 and 2023.

METHODS

A manual search was conducted to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) involved SRs published in selected journals between 2015 and 2023 from the official online archives. Two authors independently and in duplicate extracted the characteristics of each included SR, recording both the usage of dPROs in the Methods sections and the reporting of dPROs in the Results sections.

RESULTS

A total of 244 SRs were found eligible and included, of which 81 (33.2%) included dPROs. Out of the 81 SRs, 19 (23.5%) described dPROs in the Methods sections, 6 (7.4%) reported dPROs exclusively in the Results sections, and 56 (69.1%) included dPROs in both sections. In the 75 SRs that stated dPROs in their Methods sections, 38 (50.7%) identified them as primary outcomes, while 37 (49.3%) considered them secondary outcomes. Among the 62 SRs that reported dPROs in the Results section, 17 (27.4%) performed quantitative synthesis, and the remaining 45 (72.6%) conducted only qualitative synthesis. A total of 26 dPROMs were identified, of which only 11 were included in meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Only about one-third of SRs published in leading orthodontic journals included dPROs. It is recommended that researchers consider the usage of dPROs and dPROMs during the design and registration stages of orthodontic SRs and ensure transparent reporting of the results, thus facilitating evidence-based practice and shared decision-making in clinical care.

Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading orthodontic journals using the PRISMA abstract criteria. Additionally, the study examined characteristics associated with improved abstract reporting quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective observational study design was employed. Systematic reviews published between January 2018 and December 2022 in four prominent orthodontic journals were identified through electronic and manual searches. Inclusion criteria focused on articles with "SR" or "meta-analysis" keywords in the title or abstract. Narrative and historical reviews, scoping reviews, and case reports with extensive literature reviews were not considered as part of the exclusion criteria. The screening was carried out in duplicate and independently by the two authors.

RESULTS

The European Journal of Orthodontics had the highest number of included articles, while the Journal of Orthodontics had the lowest. The majority of SRs had authors affiliated with academic institutions. Compliance scores varied across journals and regions, with Asia scoring the highest. Certain checklist items, such as identifying the report as an SR, stating objectives, describing included studies, providing interpretation, and registration, were adequately reported in over 93% of the reviews. However, the reporting of risk of bias and synthesis of results showed room for improvement.

CONCLUSION

The study revealed a significant improvement in the overall Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) score of included SRs, primarily due to enhanced reporting of specific checklist items. However, there remains considerable scope for further improvement in abstract reporting, highlighting the importance of striving to meet higher standards in SR abstracts.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The study showed a notable increase in the PRISMA-A score. However, there is still a need for continued efforts to meet higher reporting standards in SR abstracts. How to cite this article: Alharbi F, Alghabban RO. Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(5):459-462.

Effect of PRISMA 2009 on reporting quality in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in high-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2018

INTRODUCTION

The PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals.

METHODS

This study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2009 (n = 211) and 2012-2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics.

RESULTS

The number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting.

CONCLUSION

Following the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.