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

ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionThe 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 quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals

Objectives

Abstracts of systematic reviews are of critical importance, as consumers of research often do not access the full text. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading oral implantology journals.

Methods

Six specialty journals were screened for SRs between 2008 and 2012. A 16-item checklist, based on the PRISMA statement, was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting.

Results

Ninety-three SR abstracts were included in this study. The majority were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research (43%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 72.5% (95% CI: 70.8–74.2). Most abstracts were structured (97.9%), adequately reporting objectives (97.9%) and conclusions (93.6%). Conversely, inadequate reporting of methods of the study, background (79.6%), appraisal (65.6%), and data synthesis (65.6%) were observed. Registration of reviews was not reported in any of the included abstracts. Multivariate analysis revealed no difference in reporting quality with respect to continent, number of authors, or meta-analysis conduct.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in implantology journals requires further improvement.

Clinical significance

Better reporting of SR abstracts is particularly important in ensuring the reliability of research findings, ultimately promoting the practice of evidence-based dentistry. Optimal reporting of SR abstracts should be encouraged, preferably by endorsing the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines.     

Adequate Reporting of Dental Diagnostic Accuracy Studies is Lacking: An Assessment of Reporting in Relation to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Statement

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of full-text articles of dental diagnostic accuracy studies published in eight leading speciality dental journals in relation to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement.MethodsThe full articles of all included studies were assessed for their adherence to the 30-item STARD checklist by two researchers independently. A score of 0-2 was attributed to each item. Inter-rater agreement was assessed. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were carried out to evaluate differences in reporting qualities between journals and whether certain variables influenced reporting qualities.ResultsA total of 145 articles were identified. Full-article STARD checklist items relating to methodology and results were poorly reported. The overall mean quality score for full articles was 28.75. Articles published in the Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery obtained the highest quality score. In the multivariate analysis, articles published in the Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery had significantly higher reporting quality scores than those published in the European Journal of Orthodontics (β = ?6.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: ?11.62, ?2.30, P < .05), the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (β = ?8.01, 95% CI: ?14.60, ?1.41, P < .05) and Oral Diseases (β = ?6.72, 95% CI: ?11.57, ?1.86, P < .05). Reporting quality improved each year (P < .028).ConclusionAdherence of full articles to the STARD is suboptimal in dental journals.     

THE STRUCTURE FORMAT OF ABSTRACTS: A SURVEY OF LEADING DENTAL JOURNALS AND THEIR EDITORS

ObjectivesTo present the actual usage of different structure formats in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) published in SCIE-indexed dental journals, and to assess the awareness, knowledge, as well as attitudes towards the structured formats of RCT and SR abstracts among editors-in-chief (EICs) of dental journals.MethodsIn the first part of this study, we selected SCIE-indexed dental journals and assessed their eligibility according to pre-determined criteria. All RCTs and SRs published in the included journals during January-June 2020 were identified through a hand-search. The actual usage of different structure formats and headings, as well as relevant editorial policies were extracted. In the second part, an anonymous online survey among the EICs of included dental journals was conducted.ResultsA total of 88 journals were included, from which 364 RCT abstracts and 130 SR abstracts were identified. For RCT abstracts, 86% were structured, with 83% in IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and 3% in highly structured (HS) format. For SR abstracts, 80% were structured, including 73% in IMRaD and 7% in HS format. According to the “instructions to authors”, most journals required either IMRaD (68%) or HS (5%) for RCTs, while less than half required either IMRaD (36%) or HS (9%) for SRs. Twenty-one (24%) EICs participated in our survey, among which 18 agreed that structured formats could improve the reporting quality of RCT abstracts, while only 12 of them thought HS format should be widely recommended in the dental field.ConclusionsCompared with the HS format, IMRaD was more frequently used and required among RCT and SR abstracts in dentistry. Structured formats held a relatively high degree of recognition among EICs of dental journals. Joint efforts are needed for improving the awareness and usage of HS format.     

The Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthodontics

ObjectivesAccurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting.MethodsThe 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling.Results128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: β = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: β = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: β = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (β = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: β = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: β = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: β = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values.ConclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.     

Quality Assessment of Randomized Clinical Trials Reporting in Endodontic Journals: An Observational Study from 2012 to 2017

Introduction

Reports on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are of critical importance because readers of research often do not access the full text. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of RCTs in 2 leading endodontic journals.

The Effect of Flapless Surgery on Implant Survival and Marginal Bone Level: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Background: The clinical outcomes of implants placed using the flapless approach have not yet been systematically investigated. Hence, the present systematic review and meta‐analysis aims to study the effect of the flapless technique on implant survival rates (SRs) and marginal bone levels (MBLs) compared with the conventional flap approach. Methods: An electronic search of five databases (from 1990 to March 2013), including PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central, and a hand search of peer‐reviewed journals for relevant articles were performed. Human clinical trials with data on comparison of SR and changes in MBL between the flapless and conventional flap procedures, with at least five implants in each study group and a follow‐up period of at least 6 months, were included. Results: Twelve studies, including seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one cohort study, one pilot study, and three retrospective case‐controlled trials (CCTs), were included. The SR of each study was recorded, weighted mean difference (WMD) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated, and meta‐analyses were performed for changes in MBL. The average SR is 97.0% (range, 90% to 100%) for the flapless procedure and 98.6% (range, 91.67% to 100%) for the flap procedure. Meta‐analysis for the comparison of SR among selected studies presented a similar outcome (risk ratio = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.01, P = 0.30) for both interventions. Mean differences of MBL were retrieved from five RCTs and two retrospective CCTs and subsequently pooled into meta‐analyses; however, none of the comparisons showed statistical significance. For RCTs, the WMD was 0.07, with a 95% CI of ?0.05 to 0.20 (P = 0.26). For retrospective CCTs, the WMD was 0.23, with a 95% CI of ?0.58 to 1.05 (P = 0.58). For the combined analysis, the WMD was 0.03, with a 95% CI of ?0.11 to 0.18 (P = 0.67). The comparison of SR presented a low to moderate heterogeneity, but MBL presented a considerable heterogeneity among studies. Conclusion: This systematic review revealed that the SRs and radiographic marginal bone loss of flapless intervention were comparable with the flap surgery approach.     

An unusual lateral incisor

Abstract

Objectives: To assess whether structured abstracts improved the sensitivity, precision and yield of retrieving clinical trials, using electronic searches, for example, MEDLINE, from dental journals.

Design: Retrospective, observational study.

Sample: Clinical trials, published in six dental journals. Three that adopted structured abstracts (BDJ, CPJ, JO) and three that remained unchanged (JDR, EJO, AJODO) between January 1995 and December 1998 (extended to December 2002 for the JO).

Intervention: Adoption of a structured abstract format.

Control: Continued use of a non-structured abstract format.

Method: A combination of handsearching and the Cochrane Collaboration Oral H1ealth Group’s Trials Register and/or CENTRAL were used to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) over the selected time period. MEDLINE was used to identify clinical trials in the selected journals over the same time period.

Results: There was no significant difference in the sensitivity or yield of clinical trial retrieval in journals with either abstract format over time. However, there was a significant increase in precision in journals that did not change their format (OR=4.96 (95% CI 1.18, 20.86) but not those that did. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity or yield of clinical trial retrieval either before or after the change in format or precision of retrieval before the change. However, in the later period, the precision of retrieval was significantly better in journals with unstructured abstracts compared to those with structured abstracts (OR=0.17 (95% CI 0.04, 0.7).

Conclusion: The use of a structured abstract format does not improve the sensitivity, precision or yield of retrieval of clinical trials from MEDLINE.     

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

Introduction

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in endodontics.

Effectiveness of Periodontal Treatment to Improve Metabolic Control in Patients With Chronic Periodontitis and Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: It was recently suggested that scaling and root planing (SRP) may help to improve glycemic and metabolic control in patients with chronic periodontitis (CP) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2); however, the effectiveness of SRP in this role remains unclear. This meta‐analysis assesses the effectiveness of SRP in improving glycemic and metabolic control in patients with CP and DM2. Methods: A literature search of electronic databases was performed for articles published through May 16, 2012, followed by a manual search of several dental journals. A meta‐analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). Weighted mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and high‐ and low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL and LDL, respectively). All outcomes were evaluated as changes from baseline to the end of follow‐up. Heterogeneity was assessed with the χ²‐based Cochran Q test and I² statistic. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: After the study selection process, five randomized clinical trials were included. Results of the meta‐analysis indicated that SRP was effective in the reduction of HbA1c (MD = 0.65; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.88; P <0.05) and FPG (MD = 9.04; 95% CI 2.17 to 15.9; P <0.05), but no significant differences were found in the reduction of TC, TG, HDL, or LDL. No evidence of heterogeneity was detected. Conclusion: The meta‐analysis results seem to support the effectiveness of SRP in the improvement of glycemic control in patients with CP and DM2; however, future studies are needed to confirm these results.     

Is bromelain an effective drug for the control of pain and inflammation associated with impacted third molar surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether bromelain is an effective drug for the control of pain and inflammation associated with third molar surgery. Randomized, controlled clinical trials on the subject were identified through a systematic search of the literature using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two independent, blinded reviewers selected studies based on the inclusion criteria. Divergences of opinion were resolved by consensus. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes pain and trismus and was based on the inverse variance method for continuous outcomes, considering the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 186 articles were initially retrieved from the databases. After the different stages of the selection process, five articles reporting data for a total 252 patients remained and were included in the review. Bromelain proved to be effective at controlling postoperative pain at 48–72 h after surgery (P = 0.03; MD ?0.89, 95% CI ?1.70 to ?0.09), but did not achieve a significant effect in comparison to the control group with regard to oedema or trismus.     

Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality

BACKGROUND: Previous evaluations showed that literature-search and selection methods reported in dental systematic reviews (SR) have improved since 2000. It is not known, however, whether these differences are consistent between the SR of the different dental specialities. METHODS: SR in dentistry published in the English language between 1 January 2000 and 14 June 2006 were located and then categorised by American Dental Association (ADA) recognised specialities. Search and selection methods were evaluated following an adaptation of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Search and selection methods between dental specialities were compared using Pearson's chi-squared analysis and ranked. RESULTS: There were significant differences between specialities in the following criteria: documentation of search dates (P 0.003); inclusion-exclusion documentation (P 0.017); article selection by two or more reviewers (P 0.001); and inclusion of all languages (P 0.014). Periodontics SR met the most criteria followed by oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) and then dental public heath (DPH). Prosthodontics along with the area of oral and maxillofacial radiology (OMR) met the fewest. All dental SR had low compliance with four criteria, only 65.7% searched more than Medline, 50.4% had a search strategy documented with Boolean operators, 51.5% had article selection carried out by two or more reviewers and only 25.7% included all languages. CONCLUSIONS: Some dental specialities are better at reporting search and selection methods than others but all dental SR need some improvement in their reporting.     

Efficacy and safety of articaine versus lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis treatment: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of articaine compared with lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis (IP) treatment. Databases were explored electronically and relevant journals as well as the references of the included studies were hand‐searched for randomised clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of articaine with lidocaine in treatment of IP. Twenty studies were included, of which eight had low risk of bias, 10 had moderate risk of bias and two had high risk of bias. In comparison with 2% lidocaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine, 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine showed a higher success rate in anaesthesia of IP at either person (risk ratio (RR) 1.15; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.10 1.20; P < 0.00001) or tooth unit (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.10 1.19, P < 0.00001), lower VAS scores during injection phase (mean difference (MD) ?0.67; 95% CI ?1.26 ?0.08, P = 0.02) and treatment phase (MD ?3.35; 95% CI ?3.78 ?2.91, P < 0.00001), shorter onset time of pulpal anaesthesia (MD ?0.94; 95% CI ?1.13 ?0.74, P < 0.00001) and lower percentage of patients undergoing adverse events (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.03 0.92, P = 0.04). Given the efficacy and safety of the two solutions, 4% articaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine with 1:100 000 epinephrine in dental treatments in IP.     

Influence of Laser‐Microtextured Surface Collar on Marginal Bone Loss and Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue Response: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Background: A laser‐microtextured surface (LMS) dental implant collar appears to promote a more tooth‐like gingival collagen fiber attachment, which may help to stabilize peri‐implant tissues. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the clinical effect of an LMS versus non‐LMS collar on crestal bone level and peri‐implant soft tissue response. Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers for articles written in English up to December 2016. Studies were included if they were human clinical trials with the purpose of evaluating the impact of an LMS collar on peri‐implant hard and soft tissues. Cumulative marginal bone loss (MBL), probing depth (PD), and survival rate (SR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to show the performance of LMS implant collars. MBL, PD, and SR data were analyzed with a random effects model to compare the influence of LMS collars with non‐LMS collars (e.g., roughened surface and machined surface). Results: Fifteen human clinical studies (three randomized controlled trials, six cohort studies, and six case series) with 772 implants met the inclusion criteria. For the overall data, the weighted mean MBL was 0.72 mm (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.85 mm), PD was 1.81 mm (95% CI: 1.13 to 2.49 mm), and SR was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.98). MBL around an LMS collar was significantly less than around machined‐surface collars (weighted mean difference [WMD]: ?0.77; 95% CI: ?1.01 to ?0.52; I² = 95.2%; P <0.001). PD in the LMS group was significantly shallower than in the machined‐surface group (WMD: ?1.34; 95% CI: ?1.62 to ?1.05; I² = 81.4%; P <0.001). However, no statistically significant difference was detected for MBL between the LMS and roughened‐surface groups (WMD: ?0.04; 95% CI: ?0.16 to 0.08; I² = 0.0%; P = 0.75). No statistically significant difference was found for SR between the LMS and non‐LMS groups (risk ratio: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.04; I² = 0.0%; P = 0.91). Conclusions: Meta‐analysis showed that an LMS collar can reduce the amount of MBL and PD compared with a machined‐surface collar. Due to high heterogeneity between the included studies, results should be interpreted cautiously.     

A survey of dental journal methodological practices: Reporting guidelines and ethical policies

Background

The authors evaluated instructions for author norms among existing dental journals and analyzed whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies.