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.     

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.     

ACCURACY OF INTRAORAL SCANNERS VERSUS TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS: A RAPID UMBRELLA REVIEW

PurposeThis study aimed to (1) report the trueness and precision of intraoral scanning (IOS) in dentistry based on recent secondary sources and to (2) appraise the reporting quality of the titles and abstracts of the included literature.Materials and methodsThis rapid overview searched the PubMed/Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in March 2021 to identify reviews reporting on the accuracy of IOS. The reference list from the eligible studies was also screened for identification of other potentially eligible studies. The inclusion criteria consisted of English language systematic reviews or meta-analyses published between 2019 and 2021. The exclusion criteria were primary studies, narrative review, and extraoral scanners. The assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews was performed using the reporting checklist PRISMA extension for Abstracts (PRISMA-A). This was a self-funded research project.ResultsOut of the full text screened 25 records, 11 reviews were included. Most studies supported the IOS approach being as precise and accurate as the conventional one. Only one study significantly favored the conventional approach over the IOS, and two studies abstained from making a recommendation. The IOS was significantly superior to the traditional technique in terms of patient preference and time efficiency. After applying PRISMA-A, recommendations for improvements on titles and abstracts of future reviews of IOS and conventional impressions are provided.ConclusionLaboratory data indicated similar accuracy between IOS and conventional impressions, whereas clinical data found the same in less than 4-unit fixed dental prostheses. For more extensive definitive fixed solutions or removable prostheses, the conventional approach is recommended. IOS was superior in terms of patient preference and time reduction. More clinical trials are required to determine the clinical effectiveness of incorporating IOS in broader scenarios. Better quality of reporting secondary sources abstract is advised.     

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.     

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.     

A flood tide of systematic reviews on endodontic posts: methodological assessment using of R-AMSTAR

Objectives

To help the dental practitioner solve a specific clinical problem, systematic reviews (SRs) are seen as the best guide. In addition to the unmanageable quantity of SRs, however, one should be aware of their variable quality. The present review describes the methodological quality of SRs on postendodontic restorations to work out the value of these reviews for the dental practitioner.

Methodology

SRs were searched in April 2012, independently and in triplicate. Post survival was used as measure of outcome. The methodological quality of included SRs was assessed with the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist. Kappa statistics were used to assess reviewer agreement.

Results

Three hundred sixty-three papers were retrieved from the initial search. Ten SRs were included. One SR achieved a high R-AMSTAR score, whereas the other nine SRs achieved scores that indicate a substantial lack of methodological quality. Especially the items “grey literature,” “combination of findings,” “likelihood of publication bias,” and conflict of interest” showed low R-AMSTAR scores. The three reviews with the highest R-AMSTAR scores tended to conclude that fewer failures occurred when using nonmetal posts. The reviewer agreement was excellent (kappa ranged from 0.79 to 0.85) in the R-AMSTAR classification.

Conclusion

The approach presented revealed a lack of SRs with high methodological quality. Thus, no decisive conclusion can be drawn with respect to this topic. It appears that there is a trend for the superiority of fiber-reinforced posts.

Clinical relevance

SRs must be of high methodological quality. This can be achieved by taking into consideration the results of this review. Improved methodological quality would make SRs more supportive for the general practitioner.     

Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion: Overview of systematic reviews

Objectives: The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to investigate methodological quality and outcome of current systematic reviews (SRs) reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion.

Materials and methods: Computerized and manual searches were performed in Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, Conference abstracts and Grey literature. No restrictions were set on language or date of publication. The search covered the starting date of the relevant databases until 30 April 2015. MeSH terms and free-text terms included ‘malocclusion’, ‘Angle class III’, ‘orthodontic appliances’, ‘functional’, facemask, review and meta-analysis. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the SRs and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR (assessment of multiple systematic reviews).

Results: A total of 222 studies were retrieved and after removal of duplicates, irrelevant studies, literature reviews and surgical approach treatments, 14 SRs and/or meta-analyses were included for qualitative synthesis. Mean AMSTAR score was 7.7/11 with a range of 3–10. There was evidence to demonstrate that face mask therapy can move the maxilla forward whilst causing a backward rotation of the mandible and increased facial height. There was also some evidence of mandibular growth retardation with chin cup therapy.

Conclusions: Orthopaedic appliances can improve a class III malocclusion in growing patients over the short-term; however, each appliance has a characteristic effect on the underlying skeletal pattern.     

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.

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.     

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.     

Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health

Objectives

This study aimed to conduct a methodological assessment of paper-based systematic reviews (SR) published in oral health using a validated checklist. A secondary objective was to explore temporal trends on methodological quality.

Material and methods

Two electronic databases (OVID Medline and OVID EMBASE) were searched for paper-based SR of interventions published in oral health from inception to October 2014. Manual searches of the reference lists of paper-based SR were also conducted. Methodological quality of included paper-based SR was assessed using an 11-item questionnaire, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Methodological quality was summarized using the median and inter-quartile range (IQR) of the AMSTAR score over different categories and time periods.

Results

A total of 643 paper-based SR were included. The overall median AMSTAR score was 4 (IQR 2–6). The highest median score (5) was found in the pain dentistry and periodontology fields, while the lowest median score (3) was found in implant dentistry, restorative dentistry, oral medicine, and prosthodontics. The number of paper-based SR per year and the median AMSTAR score increased over time (median score in 1990s was 2 (IQR 2–3), 2000s was 4 (IQR 2–5), and 2010 onwards was 5 (IQR 3–6)).

Conclusion

Although the methodological quality of paper-based SR published in oral health has improved in the last few years, there is still scope for improving quality in most evaluated dental specialties.

Clinical relevance

Large-scale assessment of methodological quality of dental SR highlights areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses that can be targeted in future publications to encourage better quality review methodology.

     

Adherence of Randomized Controlled Trials to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Guidelines: A Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2011-2016 in 3 Periodontology Journals

ObjectiveTo assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP), Journal of Periodontology (JOP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JPR), published in the years 2011 until 2016, using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines.MethodsA thorough search of PubMed for RCTs published between January 2011 and December 2016 in the three journals was carried out. The CONSORT 2010 checklist (36 questions) was used to evaluate the adherence of these RCTs to these guidelines. A modified CONSORT score was calculated and categorized as “perfect” (100%), “excellent” (80%-99%), “good” (60%-79%), “modest” (40%-59%), and “poor” (<40%).ResultsA total of 369 RCTs were published in the three periodontology journals from 2011 until 2016. Based on the modified CONSORT score among all the RCTs, title, abstract, and introduction sections of the included RCTs showed good adherence to the CONSORT 2010 guidelines (60%-79%), whereas the adherence was poor for half the items in methodology (<40%), results (<40%), and discussion (40%). The highest modified CONSORT score was obtained for the trials published in the JCP from 2011 to 2016, whereas the lowest score was achieved by the RCTs in the JPR. Overall, none of the RCTs in any of the journals were perfect in reporting the trials as per the guidelines. Almost half of the RCTs in the JCP showed good adherence (51.1%), whereas almost three-fourths of the RCTs in the JOP (72%) and JPR (82.7%) showed modest to poor adherence as per the reporting guidelines (P < .001).ConclusionAmong the three periodontology journals assessed, the JCP showed better adherence than the JOP and JPR from 2011 until 2016.     

Tooth autotransplantation: An umbrella review

Tooth autotransplantation is a versatile procedure with several clinical applications among patients across different age groups. The success of this procedure depends on multiple factors. Despite the wealth of studies available, no single primary study or systematic review is able to report on every factor affecting the outcomes of autotransplantation. The aims of this umbrella review were to evaluate treatment-related and patient-related outcomes of autotransplantation and to assess the pre-, peri- or post-operative factors that could affect these. An umbrella review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. A literature search of five databases was performed up to 25 September 2022. Systematic Reviews (SR) with and without meta-analysis evaluating autotransplantation were included. Calibration among reviewers was carried out prior to study selection, data extraction and Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment. Study overlap was calculated using corrected covered area. Meta-meta-analysis (MMA) was performed for suitable SRs. The AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Seventeen SRs met the inclusion criteria. Only two SRs were suitable for conduct of MMA on autotransplantation of open apex teeth. The 5-year and 10-year survival rates were >95%. A narrative summary on factors that could affect autotransplantation outcomes and comparisons of autotransplantation to other treatment options were reported. Five SRs were rated as ‘low quality’ and 12 SRs were rated as ‘critically low quality’ in the AMSTAR 2 RoB assessment. In order to facilitate a more homogenous pool of data for subsequent meta-analysis, an Autotransplantation Outcome Index was also proposed to standardise the definition of outcomes. Autotransplantation of teeth with open apices have a high survival rate. Future studies should standardise the reporting of clinical and radiographic findings, as well as the definition of outcomes.