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.     

Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Systematic reviews (SRs) are published with an increasing rate in many fields of biomedical literature, including orthodontics. Although SRs should consolidate the evidence-based characteristics of contemporary orthodontic practice, doubts on the validity of their conclusions have been frequently expressed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology and quality characteristics of orthodontic SRs as well as to assess their quality of reporting during the last years. Electronic databases were searched for SRs (without any meta-analytical data synthesis) in the field of orthodontics, indexed up to the start of 2010. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool was used for quality assessment of the included articles. Data were analyzed with Student's t-test, one-way ANOVA, and linear regression. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to represent changes during the years in reporting of key items associated with quality. A total of 110 SRs were included in this evaluation. About half of the SRs (46.4%) were published in orthodontic journals, while few (5.5%) were updates of previously published reviews. Using the AMSTAR tool, thirty (27.3%) of the SRs were found to be of low quality, 63 (57.3%) of medium quality, and 17 (15.5%) of high quality. No significant trend for quality improvement was observed during the last years. The overall quality of orthodontic SRs may be considered as medium. Although the number of orthodontic SRs has increased over the last decade, their quality characteristics can be characterized as moderate.     

Quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry: a survey

Background: Most readers, reviewers, and editors rely on abstracts to decide whether to assess the full text of an article. A research abstract should, therefore, be as informative as possible. The standard of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and implant dentistry has not yet been assessed. The objectives of this review are: 1) to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs in periodontology and implant dentistry, and 2) to investigate changes in the quality of reporting by comparing samples from different periods. Methods: The authors searched the PubMed electronic database, independently and in duplicate, for abstracts of RCTs published in seven leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry from 2005 to 2007 and from 2009 to 2011. The quality of reporting in selected abstracts with reference to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for Abstracts checklist published in January 2008 was assessed independently and in duplicate. Cohen κ statistic was used to determine the extent of agreement of the reviewers. Pearson χ(2) test and/or Fisher exact test were used to assess differences in reporting in the two samples. Level of significance was set at P <0.05. Results: Three hundred ninety-two abstracts are included in this review. Three items (intervention, objective, and conclusions) were almost fully reported in both samples. In contrast, other items (randomization, trial registration, and funding) were never reported. There were significant changes in reporting for only two items, trial design and title (items better reported in the pre- and post-CONSORT samples, respectively). Most topics, however, were similarly poorly reported in both samples of abstracts. Conclusions: The quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs in periodontology and implant dentistry can be improved. Authors should follow the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines, and journal editors should promote clear rules to improve authors' adherence to these guidelines.     

Hierarchy of surgical stability in orthognathic surgery: overview of systematic reviews

The purpose was to perform an overview of systematic reviews in order to create a hierarchical scale of stability in orthognathic surgery with the aid of the highest level of scientific evidence. The systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The grey literature was investigated in Google Scholar and a manual search was done of the references lists of included studies. Fifteen studies were included in the final sample, of which eight were systematic reviews and seven were meta-analyses. These were assessed for methodological quality using the AMSTAR 2 tool and all were considered to be of medium to high methodological quality. The clinical studies included in the 15 reviews and meta-analyses were classified by the review authors as having a moderate to high potential for risk of bias. The hierarchical pyramid of stability in orthognathic surgery was established, with two surgical procedures considered highly unstable: (1) maxillary expansion with semi-rigid internal fixation evaluated at the dental level in the posterior region, and (2) clockwise rotation of the mandible with rigid internal fixation of bicortical screws in the sagittal direction.     

The statistical reporting quality of articles published in 2010 in five dental journals

Abstract

Objectives. Statistical methods play an important role in medical and dental research. In earlier studies it has been observed that current use of methods and reporting of statistics are responsible for some of the errors in the interpretation of results. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality of statistical reporting in dental research articles. Methods. A total of 200 articles published in 2010 were analysed covering five dental journals: Journal of Dental Research, Caries Research, Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Journal of Dentistry and Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. Each paper underwent careful scrutiny for the use of statistical methods and reporting. A paper with at least one poor reporting item has been classified as ‘problems with reporting statistics’ and a paper without any poor reporting item as ‘acceptable’. Results. The investigation showed that 18 (9%) papers were acceptable and 182 (91%) papers contained at least one poor reporting item. Conclusions. The proportion of at least one poor reporting item in this survey was high (91%). The authors of dental journals should be encouraged to improve the statistical section of their research articles and to present the results in such a way that it is in line with the policy and presentation of the leading dental journals.     

Limitations of previously published systematic reviews evaluating the outcome of endodontic treatment

The aim of this work was to identify the limitations of previously published systematic reviews evaluating the outcome of root canal treatment. Traditionally, periapical radiography has been used to assess the outcome of root canal treatment with the absence of a periapical radiolucency being considered a confirmation of a healthy periapex. However, a high percentage of cases confirmed as healthy by radiographs revealed apical periodontitis on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and by histology. In teeth, where reduced size of the existing radiolucency was diagnosed by radiographs and considered to represent periapical healing, enlargement of the lesion was frequently confirmed by CBCT. In clinical studies, two additional factors may have further contributed to the overestimation of successful outcomes after root canal treatment: (i) extractions and re-treatments were rarely recorded as failures; and (ii) the recall rate was often lower than 50%. The periapical index (PAI), frequently used for determination of success, was based on radiographic and histological findings in the periapical region of maxillary incisors. The validity of using PAI for all tooth positions might be questionable, as the thickness of the cortical bone and the position of the root tip in relation with the cortex vary with tooth position. In conclusion, the serious limitations of longitudinal clinical studies restrict the correct interpretation of root canal treatment outcomes. Systematic reviews reporting the success rates of root canal treatment without referring to these limitations may mislead readers. The outcomes of root canal treatment should be re-evaluated in long-term longitudinal studies using CBCT and stricter evaluation criteria.     

Nearly half of dental randomized controlled trials published in German are not included in Medline

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the most reliable type of clinical intervention studies. However, not all reports of RCTs are accessible in Medline. This can impede the validity of the results of systematic reviews. Ten German-language dental journals were manually searched to locate reports of controlled clinical trials published between 1970 and 2000. The publication type was determined and compared with Medline. Of the 15 777 articles, 210 reports of RCTs and 410 articles of non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified. Only 56% of the RCTs and 75% of the CCTs are available in Medline. Of the 118 reports of RCTs registered in Medline. 15 are indexed with the correct Publication Type term. Our data suggest that (a) hand-searching plays a valuable role in identifying reports of clinical dental trials, and (b) a literature search in Medline is likely to yield incomplete results.