A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives:</jats:title><jats:p>To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and Methods:</jats:title><jats:p>Systematic reviews (n = 109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p>The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%–65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P &amp;lt; .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title><jats:p>Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals

“…Reporting of orthodontic SRs in leading dentistry journals was found to be insufficient in their descriptions of registration of review protocols, reporting of funding sources, definition of summary measures, and detailed explanations of the analyzing methods and eligibility criteria. The reporting quality assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Fleming, Seehra, & Polychronopoulou, 2013). The same result was found in another study that assessed the reporting quality of the SRs of stomatology published in specialist EBM journals (Li, Lv, & Su, 2011).…”

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

“…However, an established threshold for assigning descriptive quality or an overall quality score has not yet been established; therefore, a Bhigher^AMSTAR score, rather than a Blower^AMSTAR score, may help to reveal methodologically sound systematic reviews. Conversely, we identified some selected reviews, which showed that 20 % of included SR satisfied nine or more of the 11 AMSTAR criteria [17,18]. While it was out of the scope of this review to explore reasons for differences in methodological quality of SR across dental disciplines, the present results may serve as reference for further methodological development of SR published in these fields.…”

“…The three least common topics were restorative dentistry (n=15; 2.3 %), pain (n=11; 1.7 %), and other unclassified studies (n=25; 3.9 %). Although the median number of studies per SR was [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28], the majority (70.2 %, n=450) included fewer than 24 studies in their review, while 2.0 % (n=13) included more than 100 studies. Most studies failed to describe study characteristics (88.2 %, n = 567), with terms such as Badults^(6.5 %, n = 42) or Bpaediatrics^(5.3 %, n = 34) populations used sparingly among the studies.…”

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

“…In a study of 109 systematic reviews published in major orthodontic journals, 26 were published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In all, 21% of the selected reviews satisfied 9 or more of the 11 AMSTAR criteria [64,65]. However, to our best knowledge, no methodological survey concerned specifically pediatric oral health.…”