Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Endodontics

Reporting quality of scoping reviews in endodontics: A meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reporting quality of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in endodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and to analyse their association with a range of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics.

METHODS

Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 31 January 2024 to identify scoping reviews in the field of endodontics. An additional search was performed in three leading endodontic journals. Study selection and appraising the quality of the studies was carried out independently by two reviewers. Each of the 20 PRISMA-ScR items were allocated a score of either 0, 0.5 or 1 to reflect the completeness of the reporting. An item-specific and overall percentage reporting quality score was calculated and reported through descriptive statistics across a range of publication, as well as methodological/reporting characteristics. A univariable and multivariable quantile regression was performed to identify the effect of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics (year of publication, journal, inclusion of an appropriate reporting guideline, and study registration) on the overall percentage reporting quality score. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was then investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included for appraisal. Most of the studies were published from 2021 onwards. The overall median reporting quality score was 86%. The most frequent items not included in the studies were: a priori protocol registration (22/40 compliant; 55%), and reporting of funding (16/40 compliant; 40%). Other key elements that were inadequately reported were the abstract (7/40 compliant; 18%), the rationale and justification of the ScR (21/40 compliant; 52%) and the objectives of the study (18/40 compliant; 45%). Studies that adhered to appropriate reporting guidelines were associated with greater reporting quality scores (β-coefficient: 10; 95%CI: 1.1, 18.9; p = .03). ScRs with protocols registered a priori had significantly greater reporting quality scores (β-coefficient: 12.5; 95%CI: 6.1, 18.9; p < .001), compared with non-registered reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of the ScRs in endodontics varied and was greater when the ScR protocols were registered a priori and when the authors adhered to reporting guidelines.

Methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality.

METHODS

Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of '1' if it was fully addressed, '0.5' if it was partially ddressed, and '0' if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%.

RESULTS

A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores.

DISCUSSION

Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores.

CONCLUSION

In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with meta-analyses focusing on traumatic dental injuries: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

High methodological quality is required to interpret results of systematic reviews (SRs) in a reliable and accurate manner. The primary aim of this study was to appraise the methodologic quality of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and assess overall confidence in their results. A secondary aim was to identify potential predictive factors associated with methodological quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SRs with meta-analyses published in English in the field of traumatic dental injuries from inception to March 2023 were identified. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Two independent evaluators scored each AMSTAR 2 item as "yes" if it was adequately addressed, "partial yes" if it was partially addressed, and "no" if it was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as "High," "Moderate," "Low," or "Critically low." Using multiple regression, the relationship between five predictor variables (journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, journal adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and a priori protocol registration) and the total AMSTAR 2 scores was analyzed. The p-value was 5%.

RESULTS

Forty-one SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of 13 reviews was categorized as "Critically low," 18 as "Low," 3 as "Moderate" and 7 as "High." Among the five predictor variables analyzed statistically, impact factor of the journal and year of publication significantly influenced the total AMSTAR 2 scores. The number of authors, adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and a priori protocol registration had no significant impact on AMSTAR 2 scores.

CONCLUSION

The overall confidence in the results of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries was "Low" or "Critically Low" in the vast majority of studies (31 of 41). SRs with meta-analyses published in journals with higher impact factors and more recent publications had significantly higher methodological quality.

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.

A systematic evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of published meta-analyses (MAs) in four major gastrointestinal endoscopic journals, and identify the predicted factors for high quality.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed to identify MAs from 1, January, 2016 to 31, December, 2020 in four major gastrointestinal endoscopic journals (including Digestive Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Surgical Endoscopy, and Endoscopy). We collected the characteristics of MAs after filtering unqualified articles, and assessed methodological and reporting qualities for eligible articles by AMSTAR tool and PRISMA checklist, respectively. Logistic regression was used for identifying predictive factors for high quality.

RESULTS

A total of 289 MAs were identified after screening by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The scores (mean ± SD) of AMSTAR and PRISMA were 7.73 ± 1.11 and 22.90 ± 1.85, respectively. In PRISMA checklist, some items had less than 50% complete adherence, including item 2 (structured summary), items 5 (protocol and registration), items 12 and 19 (risk of bias in studies), item 27 (funding support). Item 1 (a priori design), item 4 (gray literature research), item 5 (list of included and excluded) were inferior to 50% adherence in AMSTAR tool. We found the predictive factors for high quality through logistic regression analysis: a priori design and funding support were associated with methodological quality. Protocol and registration influenced the methodological and reporting quality closely.

CONCLUSION

In general, qualities on the methodology and the reporting of MAs published in the gastrointestinal endoscopic journals are good, but both of which still potentially need further improvement.

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.

Assessment of spin in abstracts of Endodontic Systematic Reviews with meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2022. Are we in need of more transparent interpretation of findings?

AIM

Spin refers to reporting, interpretation and extrapolation related distortion or manipulation of the findings of a study. The aim of this report was to identify the prevalence and extent of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) including meta-analyses in the scientific field of Endodontics.

METHODOLOGY

A sensitive and inclusive search strategy in PubMed was developed to identify eligible SRs with meta-analyses in Endodontics, supplemented by an electronic search within 3 major specialty journals, from January 1, 2010 to April 16, 2022. Inclusion and extent of spin was recorded, per domain and following issues related to misleading reporting, interpretation and inappropriate extrapolation of meta-analyses' findings. Association of spin with publication characteristics such as year, journal type, number of authors, continent of authorship, funding, primary study design and significance of the outcome was explored.

RESULTS

A hundred and eighty-six SRs with meta-analyses were retrieved, and inclusion of spin was detected in 125 abstracts (67.2%), for one or more domains. The majority of abstracts were affected by more than one types of spin (91/125; 72.8%). There was evidence that abstracts of meta-analyses of non-significant findings had 60% lower odds for inclusion of spin (Odds ratio, OR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.19, 0.83; p= 0.04), after adjusting for year, journal type and number of authors.

CONCLUSIONS

Misleading reporting and misinterpretation of findings in abstracts of meta-analyses is evident in endodontic research. Efforts should be reinforced to increase awareness within the scientific and academic community to improve adherence to transparent reporting and interpretation.

The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - A systematic review

AIMS

The aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on nursing interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to determine potential factors that predict high quality.

DESIGN

The review is a quantitative systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

REVIEW METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in three databases for SRs/MAs published up to 6 May 2020. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR checklist were used to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality.

RESULTS

A total of 130 articles published between 1996-2020 from 69 journals were included in this review. Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated that the following factors were related to the higher reporting quality of included articles: having a protocol or registration and being published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews including meta-analyses, number of authors >5, number of pages and having protocol or registration were related to higher methodological quality. A strong linear correlation (r = 0.860) was detected between the scores of PRISMA and AMSTAR.

CONCLUSION

A significant number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with COPD show suboptimal reporting and poor methodology quality. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in conducting, reading, reviewing and editing systematic reviews and meta-analyses is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

IMPACT

The findings of this review can provide references for health workers and health policy makers to evaluate and apply evidence-based knowledge. Additionally, such high-quality systematic reviews/meta-analyses can guide medical and health practice.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Spin, or the inappropriate formatting of information to emphasize certain outcomes, should not be present in research. This study focuses on identifying and characterizing the presence of spin in systematic review and meta-analysis abstracts that focus on the treatment of opioid use disorder. Methods: Search strategies were developed to identify studies pertaining to the treatment of opioid use disorder. The studies were then screened by two authors. These qualifying studies were then evaluated for the presence of spin within their abstracts by two trained authors. These studies were also evaluated by the AMSTAR-2 standards to evaluate the quality of the qualifying systematic reviews by two trained reviewers. Results: The sample in this study included 113 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Spin was present in 20 of these studies (20/113, 17.7%). The most common spin form was spin type 3 (6/20, 30%), followed by types 5 and 9 (both 4/20, 20%), type 6 (3/20, 15%), type 7 (2/20, 10%), and type 8 (1/20, 5%). The remaining spin types 1, 2, and 4 were not present in the sample. Of the 113 included studies, the most common intervention type was pharmacologic (93/113, 82%). No significant association was found between the quality of a systematic review and the presence of spin. Conclusions: Findings in this study show positive trends in prevalence of five forms of spin evaluated in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses looking at treatments for opioid use disorder. However, study quality had no significant association with the presence of spin. Misrepresentation of results, or spin, may alter a clinician's perceptions about treatment efficacies. Therefore, increasing physician awareness of spin may improve clinical decision-making.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humerus fractures

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that many physicians rely solely on abstracts to make clinical decisions. However, many abstracts have been shown to be misleading. The primary objective of this study was to identify the prevalence of spin - bias towards particular results - within the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to the treatment of proximal humerus fractures, one of the most common osteoporotic fractures among elderly patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. The nine most severe types of spin that occur within abstracts were extracted along with study characteristics, including journal recommendations to adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and year in which the review was performed, to identify potential associations. We subsequently explored the association between spin and the methodological quality of a systematic review using the revised A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) appraisal instrument.

RESULTS

Our search retrieved 505 articles, of which 73 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. We found that 34.2% (25/73) of the included systematic reviews contained spin. Spin type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention) was the most common type identified (12/73, 16.4%). Three spin types were not identified in any of the abstracts. Spin was 3.2 (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.02-10.02) times more likely to be present in systematic reviews published in journals recommending adherence to PRISMA. Furthermore, the odds of an abstract containing spin was 1.25 (OR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52) times more likely to be present in systematic reviews for each year after 2000. No other study characteristics were associated with spin. The methodological quality of 24 studies were rated as "critically low" (32.9%), 14 were "low" (19.2%), 28 were "moderate" (38.4%), and 7 were "high" (9.6%), but these findings were not associated with spin.

CONCLUSION

Spin was present in systematic review abstracts regarding treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Measures such as education on the subject of spin and improved reporting standards should be implemented to increase awareness and reduce incidence of spin in abstracts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE OF THE STUDY PERFORMED

Basic Science Study; Research Methodology.

Comparison between immediate and delayed post space preparations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of immediate and delayed post space preparation on apical sealing.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Two independent authors conducted a systematic search (PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and other databases, until February 2020) and a risk of bias evaluation. Only in vitro studies that compared the effects of immediate and delayed post space preparations on apical filling and adhesion of the post were eligible.

RESULT

Of the 742 articles retrieved, 32 were included. Most of the studies used single-rooted human teeth and rotary files for root canal preparation, a single-cone technique for the filling protocol, and rotary instruments for post space preparation. Various delayed preparation times were evaluated: 8-72 h, 5-30 days (mainly 7 days), and 4 months. In nine studies, the delayed groups showed more apical leakage, while four studies reported more leakage in the immediate groups; ten studies found no significant difference. One study found more bacterial penetration in the delayed group, whereas three studies showed no significant difference. One study reported more voids in the delayed group, while another found no such difference. Three studies showed better post-bond strength in the delayed group, one in the immediate group, whereas three found no significant difference in post-bond strength. Three studies employing varied sealers for root canal fillings were considered for meta-analysis. Two subgroup analyses were also performed (one concerning the use of resin-based sealers (AH Plus), another for zinc oxide-eugenol-based sealers). The results of the meta-analysis showed that a delayed post space preparation led to a significantly higher apical leakage than an immediate preparation (mean difference = 0.41 mm, confidence interval = 0.24-0.59, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Delayed post space preparation seems to negatively influence apical sealing; however, further studies are needed to determine the influence of the timing of post space preparation on the other parameters.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Immediate post space preparation may be the safest clinical choice to prevent apical leakage.

Critical analysis of methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of antibiotics in third molar surgeries using AMSTAR 2

The clinicians usually prescribe antibiotics to reduce post-operative complications during third molar surgeries. However, in the absence of clear conclusions regarding the use of antibiotics in third molar surgeries, present systematic review was planned to assess the quality of systematic reviews evaluating the efficiency of antibiotics in reducing post-operative complications. The literature search was done in Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PUBMED, EMBASE, and Google scholar. Systematic reviews published in English during the period from January 1990 to December 2019 were included. The maxillary and mandibular third molars indicated for extraction either because of infection, orthodontic or prophylactic reasons were included. From 526 screened studies, thirteen reviews were qualified for qualitative analysis. The qualities of the included reviews were evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The included reviews were also evaluated based on the number of authors, geographic region, impact factor of the published journal, year of publication, and the number of citations for each review. One high quality, eight moderate quality, three low quality, and one critically low-quality reviews were observed in the present review. No statistically significant difference was observed between the included reviews based upon the analysis of the number of authors, geographic region, impact factor of the published journal, year of publication, and the number of citations for each review. Considering the observations form the high and moderate-quality reviews, the present systematic review concludes that antibiotics effectively aid in reducing the post-operative complications and frequency of observation of dry socket.

The effectiveness of ultrasound examination to assess the healing process of bone lesions of the jaws: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential of ultrasound examination (USE) as an adjunctive method to conventional radiology to evaluate the healing processes occurring after the treatment of bone lesions of the jaws. The research question was: what is the effectiveness of USE to evaluate the healing of intra-osseous bone lesions when compared to radiological or clinical examination?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six databases (PubMed, the Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Best Evidence) were searched from their inception (PROSPERO CRD42019134482). A quality assessment was performed combining the Downs and Black tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The risk of bias was calculated using the Cochrane collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

A total of 4404 records were screened, and 7 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the systematic review. USE allowed to evaluate the healing of jaw bone lesions by assessing their reduction in size, the increase in echogenicity of the affected area, and the progressive decrease\disappearance of the vascular flow signal within the lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

USE implemented with color power Doppler is an advanced imaging technique feasible to monitor the early and long-term response of the intra-osseous lesions of the jaws to both surgical and nonsurgical treatment.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This systematic review brought evidence that USE can constitute a safe alternative imaging technique in the dental clinical practice for the management of central lesions of the maxillary bones.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Background

Spin is the misrepresentation of study findings, which may positively or negatively influence the reader’s interpretation of the results. Little is known regarding the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews, specifically systematic reviews pertaining to the management and treatment of acne vulgaris.

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to characterize and determine the frequency of the most severe forms of spin in systematic review abstracts and to evaluate whether various study characteristics were associated with spin.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design, we searched PubMed and EMBASE for systematic reviews focusing on the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Our search returned 316 studies, of which 36 were included in our final sample. To be included, each systematic review must have addressed either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment of acne vulgaris. These studies were screened, and data were extracted in duplicate by two blinded investigators. We analyzed systematic review abstracts for the nine most severe types of spin.

Results

Spin was present in 31% (11/36) of abstracts. A total of 12 examples of spin were identified in the 11 abstracts containing spin, with one abstract containing two instances of spin. The most common type of spin, selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention, was identified five times (5/12, 42%). A total of 44% (16/36) of studies did not report a risk of bias assessment. Of the 11 abstracts containing spin, six abstracts (55%) had not reported a risk of bias assessment or performed a risk of bias assessment but did not discuss it. Spin in abstracts was not significantly associated with a specific intervention type, funding source, or journal impact factor.

Conclusions

Spin is present in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of acne vulgaris. This paper raises awareness of spin in abstracts and emphasizes the importance of its recognition, which may lead to fewer incidences of spin in future studies.

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.

Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals

AIM

To systematically evaluate the reporting quality of the abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to December 2017. Selection of studies by title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment was independently done by two reviewers. The quality of abstracts was assessed by PRISMA-Abstract checklist comprising of 12 items; one each for title and objective, three items for methods, three items for results, two items for discussion and two items for others. PRISMA-A median scores were calculated and compared with the article characteristics. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and multi-variate analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-Abstract score was 7.46 ± 1.19. None of the studies were of high quality (score 10-12), 20 were of moderate (score 7-9), and 4 were of low quality (score 1-6). Journals that adhered to PRISMA guidelines showed significantly higher quality (p < 0.05). No association was found between the quality and the number of authors, country, journals, year of publication, word count and focus of study.

CONCLUSION

Majority of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals were of moderate quality. Adoption and adherence to PRISMA-Abstract checklist by the journal editors and authors will enhance the reporting quality of abstracts.

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

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry indexed within PubMed during the year 2017.

METHODS

We searched for SRs in dentistry indexed within PubMed in 2017. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Data related to epidemiological and reporting characteristics were extracted by one of three reviewers. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. Characteristics of SRs were analyzed considering all SRs included and subgrouped by dental specialties. In addition, we explored if the reporting of 24 characteristics of treatment/therapeutic SRs was associated with the self-reported use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement calculating the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each characteristic.

RESULTS

495 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The main specialty considered was Oral Surgery numbering 75 articles. Brazil presented the highest contribution with 117 SRs (23.6%). The reporting quality was variable. Items such as, use of the term "systematic review", or "meta-analysis" in the title or abstract was well reported. In contrast, the study risk of bias/quality assessment method was not reported in 40.5% of SRs. In addition, only four reporting characteristics were described more often in those SR that reported using the PRISMA Statement.

CONCLUSION

A large number of SRs were published in dentistry in 2017 and the reporting and epidemiological characteristics varied among dental specialties. There is a mandatory need to improve the quality of reporting and conduct of SRs in dentistry.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Poor reporting and conduction of SRs could generate SRs with imprecise and biased results.

Improving the quality of reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey

Background

Dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) is a useful tool to investigate potential dose-response relationship between certain exposure or intervention and the outcome of interest. A large number of DRMAs have been published in the past several years. However, the standard of reporting for such studies is not known.

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Wiley Library were searched for systematic reviews with DRMAs (SR-DRMAs) published from January 2011 to July 2017. We used the combination of PRISMA and MOOSE statements, containing 33 items, to assess the reporting of included SR-DRMAs. The adherence of reporting was defined as the proportion of SR-DRMAs meeting the reporting requirement of an item. We explored the association between five pre-specified variables with the total score of reporting on both fully as well as each domain of the checklist.

Results

In total, 529 SR-DRMAs were eligible. Ten out of 33 items were under reported, and this mainly refers to the methods domain: only a small proportion of SR-DRMAs stated whether a review protocol existed (45, 8.5%); clarified the qualifications of searchers (1.7%); presented full electronic search strategy (25.9%); described any effort to include all available studies (22.9%), described methods for languages other than English (27.4%), and stated the process for selecting studies (20.2%). Multiple regression analysis suggested that studies with more authors (regression coefficient = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.35, 1.20; P <  0.001), published more recently (regression coefficient = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.47; trend P <  0.001), used reporting guideline (regression coefficient = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.32; P <  0.001), and involvement of methodologist (regression coefficient = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.32; P <  0.001) were associated with higher score of reporting. Further regression suggested that the improvement on the quality mainly concentrated on the methods and results domains.

Conclusions

The reporting of SR-DRMAs needs to be further improved, particularly in the issues refer to the methods. The quality of reporting may improve when involving more authors and methodologists and employing any reporting guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0623-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Critical appraisal of methodological quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis in Paediatric Dentistry journals

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the methodological quality of Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Meta-Analyses (MA) published in Paediatric Dentistry journals and to analyse the relationship between the authors, journals, country, review topic, and the year of publication to the methodological quality of SRs and MA.

DESIGN

Paediatric Dentistry journals ranked in the top five of the h5 index of Google Scholar Metrics were selected. SRs with MA were searched independently by two reviewers using PubMed and Scopus databases until December 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 and Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test was employed for comparing the AMSTAR score with the journal characteristics.

RESULTS

Finally, 24 SRs with MA were included. The overall AMSTAR score of SRs and MA published in paediatric dentistry journals was 7.08 ± 2.41. No statistically significant differences were found between the country, journal or focus of study to the quality of SRs except the number of authors and the year of publication (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of SRs and MA in leading Paediatric Dentistry journals were evaluated with AMSTAR tool and areas where quality could be improved were identified.

The reporting of safety among drug systematic reviews was poor before the implementation of the PRISMA harms checklist

OBJECTIVES

To examine, through a cross-sectional survey, how well safety information was reported among drug systematic reviews predating PRISMA harms checklist and explore factors associated with better reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed to identify all systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review or the core clinical journals in 2015, one year before the PRISMA harms checklist was published. We randomly selected, in a 1:1 ratio, Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews assessing drug effects (including both efficacy and safety). We used the PRISMA harms checklist published in 2016 to assess the quality of reporting of drug safety information. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to explore the association of six prespecified variables with more complete reporting of PRISMA harms items.

RESULTS

We included 120 systematic reviews, including 60 Cochrane and 60 non-Cochrane reviews. Scores on the PRISMA harms checklist (23 items) were low (median 4, [first, third quartile: 2, 6]), with no difference between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews (4.5 [2, 7] vs. 4 [2.5, 5]; P = 0.29). Among all eligible reviews, only one item (i.e., state conclusions in coherence with the review findings) was reported adequately (proportion of adherence 81.6%); proportion of reporting for other items ranged from 1.7% to 68.3%. The four essential reporting items from PRISMA harms checklist were also poorly complied (proportion of adherence ranged from 1.7% to 9.2%). Multivariable linear regression analyses found no significant associations between any study characteristic and reporting on the PRISMA harms, likely because of limited variability in scores across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of safety information was poor both for Cochrane and non-Cochrane drug systematic reviews predating PRISMA harms checklist. The findings suggested a strong need to use the PRISMA harms checklist for reporting safety among drug systematic reviews.