Current status of the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews related to implant dentistry: a literature survey |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Dental Research, School of Dentistry, Veiga de Almeida University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;2. Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;1. Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;2. Departement of Radiology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;3. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel;4. Department of Radiotherapy, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;5. Department of Pathology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;6. Department of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China;2. Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology and Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China;3. National Engineering Research Center for Biomaterials, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China;4. Department of Oral Implantology (National Key Clinical Department), West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China;1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of São Paulo School of Dentistry, São Paulo-SP, Brazil;2. Private Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, São Paulo-SP, Brazil;1. IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Policlinico di Sant’Orsola, Bologna, Italy;2. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy;3. Unit of Oral Surgery, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Italy |
| |
| Abstract: | The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews (SRs) related to implant dentistry and to assess the possible factors associated with the reporting quality. Abstracts of SRs in the field of implant dentistry, published in the last 5 years, were searched. The reporting quality was assessed and scored using the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist (PRISMA-A). The overall PRISMA-A score (OPS) and relative score (OPS%) per review were calculated according to adherence to the criteria presented in the checklist. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify possible factors associated with reporting quality. Overall, 310 SRs were eligible for this study. Based on the maximum PRISMA-A score (score of 12), the mean OPS was 6.5 and OPS% was 54.2%. The items ‘title’, ‘objectives’, and ‘number of included studies’ were those most frequently reported in the abstracts, while the items ‘registration’ and ‘funding’ were the least reported. According to multivariable linear regression, the geographical origin of the articles was the only factor associated with better quality of abstract reporting, with higher OPS for SRs from Europe when compared to North America (coefficient 0.73; P = 0.049). The reporting quality of abstracts in SRs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal and needs to be improved. Journals should encourage adherence to reporting checklists in SRs. |
| |
| Keywords: | Systematic review Abstracts Data quality Methodological study Dental implant |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
