Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics

Pediatric dentistry systematic reviews using the GRADE approach: methodological study

BACKGROUND

To assess the reporting of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach in systematic reviews of interventions in pediatric dentistry.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) in pediatric dentistry that reported the certainty of the evidence through the GRADE approach. Paired independent reviewers screened the studies, extracted data, and appraised the methodological quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. The certainty of the evidence was extracted for each outcome. A descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Around 28% of pediatric dentistry reviews of interventions used the GRADE approach (n = 24). Twenty reviews reported 112 evidence outcomes from RCTs and 13 from NRSIs using GRADE evidence profile tables. The methodological quality was high (16.7%), moderate (12.5%), low (37.5%), and critically low (33.3%), fulfilling the majority of the AMSTAR 2 criteria. The certainty of the evidence for outcomes generated from RCTs and NRSIs was very low (40.2% and 84.6%), low (33.1% and 7.7%), moderate (17.8% and 7.7%), and high (9.8% and 0.0%). The main reasons to downgrade the certainty were due to (for RCTs and NRSIs, respectively): risk of bias (68.8% and 84.6%), imprecision (67.8% and 100.0%), inconsistency (18.8% and 23.1%), indirectness (17.8% and 0.0%), and publication bias (7.1% and 0.0%).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of systematic reviews assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach was considered small, considering the total initial number of published pediatric dentistry reviews of intervention. The certainty of the evidence was mainly very low and low, and the main problems for downgrading the certainty of evidence were due to risk of bias and imprecision.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database #CRD42022365443.

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor.

RESULTS

Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036).

CONCLUSION

This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.

A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews to map photodynamic inactivation evidence in different dental specialties

This is a protocol for an overview to summarize the findings of Systematic Reviews (SR) dealing with Photodynamic Inactivation (PDI) for control of oral diseases. Specific variables of oral infectious will be considered as outcomes, according to dental specialty. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), MEDLINE, LILACS, Embase, and Epistemonikos will be searched, as well as reference lists. A search strategy was developed for each database using only terms related to the intervention (PDI) aiming to maximize sensitivity. After checking for duplicate entries, selection of reviews will be performed in a two-stage technique: two authors will independently screening titles and abstracts, and then full texts will be assessed for inclusion/exclusion criteria. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion and/or consultation with a third reviewer. Data will be extracted following the recommendations in Chapter V of Cochrane Handbook and using an electronic pre-specified form. The evaluation of the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of the SR included will be carried out using the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS. Narrative summaries of relevant results from the individual SR will be carried out and displayed in tables and figures. A specific summary will focus on PDI parameters and study designs, such as the type and concentration of photosensitizer, pre-irradiation time, irradiation dosimetry, and infection or microbiological models, to identify the PDI protocols with clinical potential. We will summarize the quantitative results of the SRs narratively.

Health technology assessment for oral health in the past decade: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) is the systematic evaluation of various properties and effects of a health technology. HTA can serve as a bridge between the world of knowledge and that of decision making, offering decision makers the best summary of scientific evidence. Scoping HTA reports in the context of dentistry can help researchers identify grey areas; help practitioners make evidence-based decisions and further initiate better policy making.

AIM

To provide an overview on HTAs pertaining to oral health and dentistry in the past decade, map the extension and scope of the methodological practices, key findings, and limitations.

METHODOLOGY

A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. A comprehensive search for HTA reports was done through the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment Database from January 2010 to December 2020. Consecutively, electronic databases (PubMed and Google Scholar) were searched. Finally, thirty-six reports were included in this review and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 709 articles were initially identified, of which thirty-six met the inclusion criteria. Reviewed HTAs focused on various specialties of dentistry worldwide. Maximum number of reports (N = 5) were related to "prosthodontics and dental implants" and technologies related to preventive dentistry were most commonly assessed (N = 4).

CONCLUSION

Functional, appropriate, and evidence-based information provided through HTA pertaining to oral health on a regular basis will enable decision makers to have enough data to make decisions on the future use of new technology, modify existing policies, accelerate its translation into practice, and ensure provision of robust dental healthcare services.

Systematic Reviews in Dental Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Contribution from Indian Dentists During 1948-2022

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

Although systematic reviews (SRs) are the backbone of evidence-based dentistry, they have appeared infrequently in dental literature and their importance may not be recognized by dentists. So, this study aimed to identify SRs in dental research contributed by Indian dentists to the PubMed database during 1948-2022 and describes their epidemiological and descriptive characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of the PubMed database was performed from 1948 through September 2022. SRs were considered for inclusion if they were related to oral health and published by Indian dentists as the first author. From this collection, the following characteristics of SRs were described: name of the journal, type of journal (e.g., general dentistry, specialty dentistry, non-dental), year of publication, author's affiliation, and focus of the SR.

RESULTS

The search identified 439 SRs in dentistry indexed in the PubMed database during 1948-2022. There were only 5 SRs published from 2007 to 2010 with maximum publications during the year 2021 (n = 114; 25.97%). About 32.35% of the SRs (n = 142) were published in 10 journals with the maximum contribution from the Journal of Conservative Dentistry (n = 22; 5.01%). The majority of the SRs were published in the field of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (n = 72; 16.40%), followed by Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (n = 63; 14.35%).

CONCLUSION

The contribution of SRs in dental research from India is small but growing. There is a clear need to improve SRs in dental research qualitatively and quantitatively.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention in dentistry published between 2019-2020 using the AMSTAR 2 tool

Introduction The number of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry published each year has grown considerably, and they have been essential in clinical decision-making and health policy.Objective The objective is to critically appraise SRs of intervention in dentistry using the 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2' (AMSTAR 2) tool published within one year.Methods A search in the Medline/PubMed database was performed. The SRs were identified in two phases. The first phase identified SRs of interventions in dentistry by title and abstract. In the second phase, the full text was read, applying the eligibility criteria. Three calibrated reviewers methodologically assessed all SRs identified using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Data were analysed descriptively, and SRs were grouped according to methodological quality as moderate/high and low/critically low. A logistic regression model was applied to explore the associations between methodological quality and the study's characteristics.Results Two hundred and twenty-two SRs were included. The methodological quality of the SRs included in this study were: critically low (56.8%), low (27.9%), moderate (14.4%) and high (0.9%), according to AMSTAR 2. There were no statistical differences between moderate/high and low/critically low methodological quality and publication year, continent, journal Impact Factor and dental speciality.Conclusion Less than 1% of recently published SRs in dentistry were classified with high methodological quality. We hope that this study will alert researchers about the need to improve the methodological quality of SRs.

Systematic and scoping reviews to assess biological parameters

INTRODUCTION

The evidence synthesis approach compiling biological/laboratory data is effective in advancing health-related knowledge. However, this approach is still underused in the oral health field.

METHODS

This Commentary discusses the opportunities and challenges of systematic and scoping reviews of laboratory data in dentistry. Special focus is put on the potential of these reviews to elucidate etiological and treatment concepts of oral diseases, such as periodontitis and periimplantitis.

RESULTS

The following difficulties associated with such studies are discussed: (i) selection of ideal study design, (ii) assessment of "risk of bias" and definition of "certainty of evidence", (iii) evidence assembly and summary, and (iv) paper review process.

DISCUSSION

Despite those challenges, high-quality reviews integrating laboratory data may generate relevant scientific information and help identify new avenues for future investigations. Experts in different oral health topics should build a process capable of helping researchers assemble and interpret these types of data.

Reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in Psychology: A scoping review

This article describes the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in Psychology. The inclusion criteria were self-declared SRs in all branches of Psychology, published between 2019 and 2020. The search was performed in the PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases, from which 2487 records were identified, and 305 papers selected. There were many discrepancies in the reporting of Psychology SRs. Some PRISMA items, such as self-identification as an SR, description of the aim and the inclusion criteria, specification of the databases, and the description of the search and selection process using a flow diagram were reported in more than 90% of the SRs. Other items had lower coverage, such as the specification of the PICO framework, presentation of the complete search strategies, mention of the reporting guidelines, description of the exclusion criteria, performance of a risk of bias assessment, and analysis of the quality of the evidence, among others. The study highlights the need to improve the planning, performance and reporting of SR in Psychology.

The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether librarian or information specialist authorship is associated with better reproducibility of the search, at least three databases searched, and better reporting quality in dental systematic reviews (SRs).

METHODS

SRs from the top ten dental research journals (as determined by Journal Citation Reports and Scimago) were reviewed for search quality and reproducibility by independent reviewers using two Qualtrics survey instruments. Data was reviewed for all SRs based on reproducibility and librarian participation and further reviewed for search quality of reproducible searches.

RESULTS

Librarians were co-authors in only 2.5% of the 913 included SRs and librarians were mentioned or acknowledged in only 9% of included SRs. Librarian coauthors were associated with more reproducible searches, higher search quality, and at least three databases searched. Although the results indicate librarians are associated with improved SR quality, due to the small number of SRs that included a librarian, results were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Despite guidance from organizations that produce SR guidelines recommending the inclusion of a librarian or information specialist on the review team, and despite evidence showing that librarians improve the reproducibility of searches and the reporting of methodology in SRs, librarians are not being included in SRs in the field of dental medicine. The authors of this review recommend the inclusion of a librarian on SR teams in dental medicine and other fields.

Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID): an expert consensus-based statement

BACKGROUND

Reporting guidelines for different study designs are currently available to report studies with accuracy and transparency. There is a need to develop supplementary guideline items that are specific to areas within Pediatric Dentistry. This study aims to develop Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID) guidelines using a pre-defined expert consensus-based Delphi process.

METHODS

The development of the RAPID guidelines was based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, the Executive Group identified ten themes in Pediatric Dentistry and compiled a draft checklist of items under each theme. The themes were categorized as: General, Oral Medicine, Pathology and Radiology, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Sedation and Hospital Dentistry, Behavior Guidance, Dental Caries, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Pulp Therapy, Traumatology, and Interceptive Orthodontics. A RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) was formed comprising of 69 members from 15 countries across six continents. Items were scored using a 9-point rating Likert scale. Items achieving a score of seven and above, marked by at least 70% of RDG members were accepted into the RAPID checklist items. Weighted mean scores were calculated for each item. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the difference in the weighted mean scores between the themes.

RESULTS

The final RAPID checklist comprised of 128 items that were finalized and approved by the RDG members in the online consensus meeting. The percentage for high scores (scores 7 to 9) ranged from 69.57 to 100% for individual items. The overall weighted mean score of the final items ranged from 7.51 to 8.28 (out of 9) and the difference was statistically significant between the themes (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The RAPID statement provides guidance to researchers, authors, reviewers and editors, to ensure that all elements relevant to particular studies are adequately reported.

The 50 most-cited articles on clear aligner treatment: A bibliometric and visualized analysis

INTRODUCTION

Research on clear aligner treatment (CAT) has increased in recent years. In this study, we aimed to perform a bibliometric and visualized analysis to identify and critically assess the 50 most highly cited articles on CAT.

METHODS

Web of Science was selected as a data source and consulted until March 2020 to identify all articles potentially relevant to the analysis. All the eligible articles were collected until 50 manuscripts were listed. Article-based parameters, journal-based parameters, and author-based parameters were registered to perform the bibliometric analysis. Keywords were automatically harvested from the selected articles to implement the visualized analysis.

RESULTS

The search identified a total of 378 articles; the total number of citations of the selected articles varied from 15 to 112. The average number of citations per year varied from 1.15 to 13.83. The predominant study design was clinical (31.7%). Over the 15 journals in which the most cited articles were published, the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics published the majority of those included in the list (14) and also received the greatest number of citations (671). A total of 195 authors contributed to the 50 most cited articles; a significant portion of them (26) were unaffiliated with academic institutions. A total of 184 keywords were gathered from the article list.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of citations on CAT is expected to grow steadily in parallel with the rising number of research projects. The present work identifies the most influential articles on CAT and their characteristics, placing emphasis on the journals, the authors, and the topics addressed.

There is still room for improvement in the completeness of abstract reporting according to the PRISMA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study on systematic reviews in periodontology

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the completeness of reporting abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) before and after the publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013 and to assess if an association exists between abstract characteristics and the completeness of reporting.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases in March 2020. The search focused on the SRs of evaluations of interventions published since 2002 in the field of periodontology. The abstracts of the selected SRs were divided into two groups before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013, and compliance with the 12 items reported in the checklist was evaluated by three calibrated evaluators.

RESULTS

A set of 265 abstracts was included in the study. The total score before (mean score, 53.78%; 95% CI, 51.56-55.90%) and after (mean score, 56.88%; 95% CI, 55.39-58.44%) the publication of the PRISMA-A statement exhibited a statistically significant improvement (P = 0.012*). Nevertheless, only the checklist items included studies and synthesis of the results displayed a statistically significant change after guideline publication. The total PRISMA-A score was higher in the meta-analysis group and in articles authored by more than four authors.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of the PRISMA-A was statistically significant, but the majority of the items did not improve after its introduction. The editors and referees of periodontal journals should promote adherence to the checklist to improve the quality of the reports and provide readers with better insight into the characteristics of published studies.

Assessing the roles and challenges of librarians in dental systematic and scoping reviews

Objective:

The objective of this study was to determine the scope of experience, roles, and challenges that librarians face in participating in dental and oral health systematic and scoping reviews to inform outreach efforts to researchers and identify areas for librarian professional development.

Methods:

The authors developed a twenty-three-item survey based on the findings of two recent articles about health sciences librarians' roles and challenges in conducting systematic and scoping reviews. The survey was distributed via electronic mailing lists to librarians who were likely to have participated in conducting dental systematic and scoping reviews.

Results:

While survey respondents reported participating in many dental reviews, they participated more commonly in systematic reviews than in scoping reviews. Also, they worked less commonly on dental and oral health reviews than on non-dental reviews. Librarian roles in dental reviews tended to follow traditional librarian roles: all respondents had participated in planning and information retrieval stages, whereas fewer respondents had participated in screening and assessing articles. The most frequently reported challenges involved the lead reviewer or review team rather than the librarians themselves, with time- and methodology-related challenges being most common.

Conclusions:

Although librarians might not be highly involved in dental and oral health systematic and scoping reviews, more librarian participation in these reviews, either as methodologists or information experts, may improve their reviews' overall quality.

The 100 most-cited papers in oral medicine and pathology

This study aimed to analyze the 100 most-cited papers in the field of oral medicine and pathology over time, identifying the areas of more intense research. Papers in journals of oral medicine and pathology were identified using the Web of Science database. The specified research period was between 1900 and 2019. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to explore the relationships among Web of Science citations, Dimensions citations, and Altmetric Attention Score. The number of citations of an article in the top 100 most-cited papers published in 1953 or later ranged from 541 to 3623. The papers were published in 47 different journals. The New England Journal of Medicine, American Cancer Society, and Nature Genetics published the most papers. Authors from 18 different countries published papers on head and neck cancer, craniofacial congenital anomalies, and osteonecrosis. Most of the papers were laboratory and descriptive studies. A correlation analysis showed a strong correlation only between Web of Science and Dimensions citations. In sum, although non-specific journals for pathology and oral medicine published the majority of the 100 most-cited papers, this biometric citation study show that head and neck cancer was the issue with the most citations. Together, these results make an important scientific contribution by providing a historical perspective on the research carried out.

Knowledge synthesis: How to improve the use of evidence from clinical trials?

BACKGROUND

The value of systematic reviews (SRs) is determined by methodology and reporting quality of primary studies and how the SR is conducted and reported.

AIM

This study discusses key aspects of clinical trials (CTs) that might affect the value of SRs.

DESIGN

Narrative review.

RESULTS

We highlighted the following CT factors that could affect SR value: Defining the purpose of CTs is important because it could directly impact whether an SR question is appropriately answered and formulated; choose the most appropriate intervention to answer a proposed SR question is critical because we can exclude or include different studies, directly influencing selection bias; when conducting SRs, the study's search must be restricted to equal or highly similar comparison groups, allowing suitable comparisons of the outcomes' estimates; in SRs, it may be interesting to explore the effect of the most common definition of the disease used in clinical practice, being useful in evidence-based dentistry and easily translated to daily practitioners; and deficiencies in CT reporting can lead to unusable reports, biased results, and conclusions.

CONCLUSION

All aspects discussed were found to be important for improving the use of evidence from CTs.

Acceptance of systematic reviews as Master/PhD theses in Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate whether a master and PhD thesis in Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry can be based on a systematic review (SR).

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed the coordinators of Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry using a self-administered questionnaire including questions about whether an SR meets requirements for approval of a master or PhD thesis, instructions regarding how to use an SR as the method for a master or PhD thesis, and reasons and barriers that SRs were not recognized as acceptable for a master or PhD thesis. The responses were analyzed descriptively, and tables and graphs were created to summarize the data.

RESULTS

Among 101 graduate programs invited to participate in the study, 38 (37.6%) returned the questionnaire. Over three-quarters of surveyed programs (n = 30, 78.1%) answered that SRs, in whole or in part, meet the criteria for a master or PhD thesis. Likewise, most programs answered that a master or PhD thesis could be exclusively based on an SR (n = 28, 73.7%). The same number of programs pointed out that one possible reason for not recognizing SRs as a master or PhD thesis is either the lack of SR expertise among committee members (n = 28, 73.7%) or the lack of adequate training of candidates in SR methodology (n = 26, 68.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

SRs are well accepted as a master or PhD thesis by Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry. Educational initiatives should be encouraged to promote understanding of SR methodology and increase acceptance among graduate programs worldwide.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Articles Published in Brazilian Dental Journal over 30 years

This study assessed bibliometric characteristics of all articles published in Brazilian Dental Journal (BDJ) in its 30 years of existence (1990-2019) and factors associated with citation rates. A document search was carried out in Scopus in December, 2019 and information about the articles were exported, including citations. Type of study and main subject in each article were categorized. Number of citations was categorized in tertiles. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between variables related to articles' characteristics and number of citations. In 30 years, 1705 articles were published and 18507 citations received, with average 57 articles and 334 pages published yearly and 10.9 cites/doc. The most frequent types of study were laboratorial (63%), clinical (18.5%), and case reports (11%); the main subjects were dental materials (21.6%), endodontics (19.3%), and oral pathology/stomatology (13.1%). Most articles had origin in Brazil (90%), followed by USA (4.6%) and UK (1.5%). Aside from BDJ, Journal of Endodontics (3.5%) and International Endodontic Journal (2.2%) were journals that most often cited BDJ. Main origins of citations were Brazil (36.7%), USA (10.6%), and India (9%). Older articles had higher odds to be highly cited (12% increase/year), longer articles had lower odds (9% decrease/page). Narrative reviews and epidemiological studies were associated with more citations and systematic reviews with less citations. In conclusion, BDJ covered many subjects and study types in 30 years, showing increased growth in international audience. The journal may be regarded as one of the leading Brazilian journals in dentistry published in English.

Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to assess whether the previous registration of a systematic review (SR) is associated with the improvement of the quality of the report of SRs and whether SR registration reduced outcome reporting bias.

METHODS

We performed a search in PubMed for SRs in dentistry indexed in 2017. Data related to SR registration and reporting characteristics were extracted. We analyzed if the reporting of 21 characteristics of included SRs was associated with the prospective registration of protocols or reporting of a previously established protocol. The association between prospective registering of protocols, reporting of funding and number of included studies versus outcome reporting bias was tested via multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We included 495 SRs. One hundred and 62 (32.7%) SRs reported registering the SR protocol or working from a previously established protocol. Thirteen reporting characteristics were described statistically significant in SRs registered versus SRs that were not. Publication bias assessment and Report the number of participants showed the highest effects favoring the register (RR 1.59, CI 95% 1.19-2.12; RR 1.58, CI 95% 1.31-1.92 respectively). Moreover, Registration was not significantly linked with the articles' reporting statistical significance (OR 0.96, CI 95% 0.49-1.90).

CONCLUSION

There is a positive influence of previously registering a protocol in the final report quality of SRs in dentistry. However, we did not observe an association between protocol registration and reduction in outcome reporting bias.

Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID): A development protocol

Reporting guidelines can improve the quality of reports of research findings. Some specialities in health care however require guidance on areas that are not captured within the existing guidelines, and this is the case for Paediatric Dentistry where no such standards are available to guide the reporting of different types of study designs. The 'Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry' (RAPID) group aims to address this need by developing guidelines on reporting elements of research of particular relevance to Paediatric Dentistry. The development of RAPID guidelines will involve a five-phase process including a Delphi study, which is an explicit consensus development method designed and implemented in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. The guideline development process will be overseen by an Executive Group. Themes specific to areas in Paediatric Dentistry will be selected, and items to be included under each theme will be identified by members of the Executive Group reviewing at least five reports of experimental and analytical study types using existing reporting guidelines. For the Delphi study, the Executive Group will identify an international multidisciplinary RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) of approximately 60 participants including academics, Paediatric Dentists, parents, and other stakeholders. Each item will be evaluated by RDG on clarity using a dichotomous scale ('well phrased' or 'needs revision') and on suitability for inclusion in the Delphi study using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = 'definitely not include' to 9 = 'definitely include'). The items will then be included in an online Delphi study of up to four rounds, with participants invited from stakeholder groups across Paediatric Dentistry. Items scored 7 or above by at least 80% of respondents will be included in the checklist and further discussed in a face-to-face Delphi consensus meeting. Following this, the Executive Group will finalize the RAPID guidelines. The guidelines will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated at scientific meetings and conferences. All the outputs from this project will be made freely available on the RAPID website: www.rapid-statement.org.

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A).

METHODS

Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores.

RESULTS

Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

The 100 most cited articles in prosthodontic journals: A bibliometric analysis of articles published between 1951 and 2019

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Bibliometric studies to determine the characteristics of the most cited articles in prosthodontic journals are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics of the 100 most cited articles in prosthodontic journals between 1951 and 2019.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Google Scholar database was used to retrieve the list of journals with titles containing the term "Prosthodontic" or "Prosthetic." Twelve journals were filtered, and of these, only 8 were related to dentistry and hence were included in the study. A search was then performed for each of the selected journals under "Publication Name," and articles were arranged by the category "Times Cited." The 100 most cited articles from the 8 journals were selected and analyzed with regard to journal name, year of publication, authors and their country, type of study, and area of research.

RESULTS

The 100 most cited articles were published between 1958 and 2013, with the numbers of citations ranging between 2368 and 343. The journal with the largest number of the articles cited was the "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry" with 72 articles, followed by the "International Journal of Prosthodontics" with 25 articles. The decade with most articles published was the 1990s with 33 articles. Many of the authors of most cited articles were from the United States or Sweden. Most articles reported reviews (35 articles), followed by experimental studies (34); the most commonly cited area of research was related to dental implants.

CONCLUSIONS

This bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles revealed interesting facts about scientific progress in the field of prosthodontics.