Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: An assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines

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.

Adherence to PRISMA-A and reporting was suboptimal in meta-analysis abstracts on drug efficacy for tumors: a literature survey

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting of meta-analysis abstracts on drug efficacy for tumors in terms of adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) and identify the potential factors associated with adherence to PRISMA-A.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A total of 3,211 eligible meta-analysis abstracts were assessed using a checklist adapted from the PRISMA-A statement. Adherence to PRISMA-A was analyzed by the total PRISMA-A score and adherence rate (AR). The independent samples t-test was performed to compare the difference of the total scores between two groups with different characteristics, and the analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis test was used among multiple groups. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure the correlation between the word count and the total PRISMA-A score.

RESULTS

The mean total score was 8.11 (±1.76) and the AR was 57.94%. The items with lower AR were funding (AR = 0.93%), registration (AR = 3.86%), and risk of bias (AR = 7.85%). Meta-analyses published after the release of PRISMA-A showed better adherence to PRISMA-A. Compared to unstructured abstracts, structured abstracts had a higher AR for each item in PRISMA-A. There was a positive correlation between the word count of abstract and the total PRISMA-A score (r = 0.358, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to PRISMA-A was suboptimal in meta-analysis abstracts on drug efficacy for tumors, despite the improvement after the release of PRISMA-A. Various measures should be implemented to improve compliance with PRISMA-A and enhance the reporting of meta-analysis abstracts, including journal endorsement of PRISMA-A, requirement of stricter adherence to PRISMA-A, relaxation of abstract word limits, etc.

The Potential Impact of the Gut Microbiota on Neonatal Brain Development and Adverse Health Outcomes

Over the past decade, microbiome research has significantly expanded in both scope and volume, leading to the development of new models and treatments targeting the gut-brain axis to mitigate the effects of various disorders. Related research suggests that interventions during the critical period from birth to three years old may yield the greatest benefits. Investigating the substantial link between the gut and brain during this crucial developmental phase raises fundamental issues about the role of microorganisms in human health and brain development. This underscores the importance of focusing on the prevention rather than the treatment of neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders. The present review examines the gut microbiota from birth to age 3, with a particular focus on its potential relationship with neurodevelopment. This review emphasizes the immunological mechanisms underlying this relationship. Additionally, the study investigates the impact of the microbiome on cognitive development and neurobehavioral issues such as anxiety and autism. Importantly, it highlights the need to integrate mechanistic studies of animal models with epidemiological research across diverse cultures to better understand the role of a healthy microbiome in early life and the implications of dysbiosis. Furthermore, this review summarizes factors contributing to the transmission of gut microbiome-targeted therapies and their effects on neurodevelopment. Recent studies on environmental toxins known to impact neurodevelopment are also reviewed, exploring whether the microbiota may mitigate or modulate these effects.

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.

Evaluation of Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Abstracts for Pediatric Strabismus Therapies

PURPOSE

This study investigates the quality of systematic review abstracts through evaluation of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) abstract guideline adherence, Assessment for Multiple Systematic Reviews Tool (AMSTAR) quality rating, spin, abstract word count, and abstract structure.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the CEV@US database for articles related to pediatric strabismus. Inclusion criteria regarding pediatric strabismus studies were required to be in English, systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, and patients less than eighteen years of age. From the search records, two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts to locate eligible reviews and extract study characteristics using AMSTAR-2 and pilot-tested Google forms.

RESULTS

Searches retrieved 545 studies, of which 14 were eligible for data extraction. We found one form of spin in 1 abstract (of 14, 7.14%) of our included studies. 11/13 (84.62%) of studies failed to mention risk of bias assessment. There was no significant association between abstract characteristics and quality of the study. We found a significant correlation between AMSTAR-2 rating and PRISMA completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a positive finding was that no spin was found within the abstracts of articles for pediatric strabismus therapies. PRISMA-A adherence was strongly associated with higher quality studies and should be considered for all systematic reviews in ophthalmology. Clinical research of pediatric strabismus is significantly limited in the number of studies present, as evidenced by our data. To improve the quality of abstract reporting, efforts from authors and journals are needed.

Current status of the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews related to implant dentistry: a literature survey

The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews (SRs) related to implant dentistry and to assess the possible factors associated with the reporting quality. Abstracts of SRs in the field of implant dentistry, published in the last 5 years, were searched. The reporting quality was assessed and scored using the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist (PRISMA-A). The overall PRISMA-A score (OPS) and relative score (OPS%) per review were calculated according to adherence to the criteria presented in the checklist. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify possible factors associated with reporting quality. Overall, 310 SRs were eligible for this study. Based on the maximum PRISMA-A score (score of 12), the mean OPS was 6.5 and OPS% was 54.2%. The items 'title', 'objectives', and 'number of included studies' were those most frequently reported in the abstracts, while the items 'registration' and 'funding' were the least reported. According to multivariable linear regression, the geographical origin of the articles was the only factor associated with better quality of abstract reporting, with higher OPS for SRs from Europe when compared to North America (coefficient 0.73; P = 0.049). The reporting quality of abstracts in SRs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal and needs to be improved. Journals should encourage adherence to reporting checklists in SRs.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts published in leading general dental journals according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) guidelines, and to identify factors associated with overall reporting quality.

METHODS

We identified SR abstracts published in 10 leading general dental journals and assessed their reporting quality. For each abstract, an overall reporting score (ORS, range: 0-13) was calculated. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to compare the reporting quality of abstracts in Pre-PRISMA (2011-2012) and Post-PRISMA (2017-2018) periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 104 eligible abstracts were included. The mean ORS was 5.59 (SD = 1.48) and 6.97 (1.74) respectively in the Pre- and Post-PRISMA abstracts, with statistically significant difference (mean difference = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.70, 2.05). Reporting of the exact P-value (B = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.99) was a significant predictor of higher reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of SR abstracts published in leading general dental journals improved after the release of PRISMA-A guidelines, but is still suboptimal. Relevant stakeholders need to work together to enhance the reporting quality of SR abstracts in dentistry.

Reporting according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) depends on abstract length

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate reporting of abstracts of systematic reviews according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 checklist.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A random sample of 534 systematic reviews on effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019 was assessed. Adherence of abstracts to PRISMA-A was analysed using descriptive statistics. Results were stratified by number of words, structure, and year of publication.

RESULT

The mean score of fully reported PRISMA-A items was 5.4 of 12, with adherence varying widely between items (0% to 98.8%). Cochrane reviews received higher mean total scores than non-Cochrane reviews (6.3 vs. 5.2). Adherence to PRISMA-A increased linearly with increasing word count. In non-Cochrane reviews, authors of structured abstracts more often adhered to PRISMA-A than those of unstructured abstracts. No improvements in reporting of abstracts were found after the implementation of PRISMA-A in 2013.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to PRISMA-A shows great potential for improvement. Therefore, authors, editors, and reviewers should be made aware of PRISMA-A by referring to it in the journal submission guidelines. As adherence to PRISMA-A increases with the number of words, journals should consider to increase the word limit to 250-300 words.

Spin and reporting in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in restorative dentistry

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews with metanalysis (SRMAs) in restorative dentistry.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were SRMAs of randomized clinical trials of restorative dentistry on survival, success, or failure rates of treatment in humans, with no language or year restriction. SRMAs performed with non-RCTs were excluded. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from inception to April 2022. Outcomes were the prevalence of spin (primary outcome) and completeness of reporting (secondary outcome) in the abstract and full text. Data were reported through means and standard deviations or absolute and relative frequencies. Spin in each item was considered low when occurring in less than 25% of the papers, moderate (25 to 75%), or high (more than 75%).

RESULTS

We identified 7029 studies and 49 unique manuscripts were included. There was a moderate presence of spin in the abstracts and low in full texts. In the abstracts, 65.9% did not report adverse events; while in the abstract and full text, more than 16% reported a conclusion containing recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings. Regarding completeness of reporting, there was poor reporting for most items in the abstract while there was an adequate report in full texts, except for register name and registration number (not reported in 32.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Abstract of SRMAs in restorative dentistry should be better reported. Spin and poor reporting were more frequent in the abstracts, which misleads readers and could lead to inadequate clinical recommendations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Spin and incomplete reporting are a threat to evidence-based practice, especially in systematic reviews. Therefore, care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders should be aware of the possibility of spin in systematic reviews and other sources to prevent misinterpretation, which could lead to inadequate decisions and treatments.

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of Shrimp Farming in the Philippines: A Critical Analysis Using PRISMA

Shrimp aquaculture is under pressure to increase its production to meet the growing demand for food from a growing population. In the Philippines, aquaculture has experienced the shift from milkfish to prawn, with its attractive marketable price. This intensification has led to negative and positive impacts, which have raised a range of environmental and socioeconomic problems. This paper reviews the environmental and socioeconomic challenges that the shrimp aquaculture industry faces using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method. We examine the gaps and the changes that are required to revitalize the industry. We examine and assess the impacts of shrimp culture on the environment, e.g., shrimp farm management, marine pollution, disease outbreaks, and the social, economic, and climate change impacts. The presence of viral diseases, such as White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), Monodon Baculovirus (MBV), Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV), Hepatopancreatic Parvovirus (HPV), and Yellow Head Virus (YHV), have caused approximate losses in the industry of 40,080 mt in 1997, and 51,000 mt in 2014. Recommended strategies and policy changes are considered for the improvement of shrimp aquaculture, including disease management, the adoption of good aquaculture practices, proper environmental monitoring, sustainable practices at the farm level, and priorities for cooperation among the concerned government agencies and local governments, as well as the involvement of state universities and colleges, for better management practices.

Overview of Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Prognostic and Health Management of Industrial Assets Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Surveys on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are related to biology, clinical trials, fintech management, medicine, neurorobotics, and psychology, among others. Prognostics and health management (PHM) is the discipline that links the studies of failure mechanisms to system lifecycle management. There is a need, which is still absent, to produce an analytical compilation of PHM-XAI works. In this paper, we use preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to present a state of the art on XAI applied to PHM of industrial assets. This work provides an overview of the trend of XAI in PHM and answers the question of accuracy versus explainability, considering the extent of human involvement, explanation assessment, and uncertainty quantification in this topic. Research articles associated with the subject, since 2015 to 2021, were selected from five databases following the PRISMA methodology, several of them related to sensors. The data were extracted from selected articles and examined obtaining diverse findings that were synthesized as follows. First, while the discipline is still young, the analysis indicates a growing acceptance of XAI in PHM. Second, XAI offers dual advantages, where it is assimilated as a tool to execute PHM tasks and explain diagnostic and anomaly detection activities, implying a real need for XAI in PHM. Third, the review shows that PHM-XAI papers provide interesting results, suggesting that the PHM performance is unaffected by the XAI. Fourth, human role, evaluation metrics, and uncertainty management are areas requiring further attention by the PHM community. Adequate assessment metrics to cater to PHM needs are requested. Finally, most case studies featured in the considered articles are based on real industrial data, and some of them are related to sensors, showing that the available PHM-XAI blends solve real-world challenges, increasing the confidence in the artificial intelligence models' adoption in the industry.

Critical problems associated with climate change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Philippine fisheries research

This paper proposes to analyze the scientific production on climate change and fisheries in the Philippine context. This research theme was chosen considering the continuous increase in scientific studies related to climate change and fisheries and will therefore help in directing researchers on future directions for research to aid in addressing critical issues in the Philippine fisheries. A total of 69 search articles were extracted using the set criteria, indexed in Web of Science, and Scopus, covering the period from 1960 to 2020. After careful screening for eligibility, twenty-seven full-text articles were chosen for qualitative synthesis. Among the literature reviewed, research foci were categorized into four: impacts assessment (56% or 15 studies) followed by management (22% or 6 studies), adaptation (15% or 4 studies), and perception (7% or 2 studies), and main themes were categorized into four: resource management (59%), economy and livelihood (19%), governance and stakeholder participation (11%), and community marginalization (11%). This review contributes to the literature by identifying research potentials and suggesting a prescriptive approach to Philippine fisheries and climate change studies.

Can Kinesio taping improve discomfort after mandibular third molar surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether Kinesio taping (KT) can improve patient discomfort after mandibular third molar surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PICO strategy. We searched 4 databases for related articles. All controlled trials or randomized controlled trials that evaluated the application of KT after mandibular third molar surgery were included. Screening and article selection were carried out by two independent reviewers. The main evaluation indicators were facial swelling, pain, and trismus. All statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULT

This analysis included 8 articles. The combined results showed that compared with the control group, the postoperative application of KT significantly reduced pain in the early (early stage mean difference (MD), - 2.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), - 2.40 to - 1.60; P < 0.00001) and late (late stage MD, - 1.18; 95% CI, - 2.26 to - 0.11; P = 0.03) postoperative periods and, thus, reduced the intake of painkillers. KT also reduced facial swelling in the early and late postoperative periods (early stage standardized mean difference (SMD), - 1.34; 95% CI, - 1.99 to - 0.68; P < 0.0001; late stage SMD, - 0.31; 95% CI, - 0.51 to - 0.11; P = 0.002). In addition, the postoperative application of KT improved restricted mouth opening in the early and late postoperative periods (early stage MD, - 5.03 mm; 95% CI, - 6.32 to - 3.74 mm; P < 0.00001; late stage MD, - 3.42 mm; 95% CI, - 5.31 to - 1.52 mm; P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

KT can significantly reduce postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus after impacted mandibular tooth extraction. Additional high-quality and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials should be conducted to verify these conclusions.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

KT is a low-cost, simple, effective nondrug therapy for the postoperative management of mandibular third molar extraction and has broad prospects for clinical application.