The Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Leading General Dental Journals: A Methodological Study

Zhong, Yuxin; Wang, Yixuan; Dan, Shiqi; Zhao, Tingting; Li, Ting; Qin, Danchen; Hua, Fang

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101831

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are consistent with those from the fields of pain medicine [ 56 ], psychology [ 57 ], nursing [ 58 ], vascular surgery [ 59 ], and radiology [ 60 ]. Our results are also consistent with studies indicating that PRISMA for Abstracts has improved the quality of dental medicine abstracts in SRs since it was published [ 61 , 62 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Effect of PRISMA 2009 on reporting quality in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in high-impact dental medicine journals between 1993–2018

Sewell,

Schellinger,

Bloss

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals. Methods This study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993–2009 (n = 211) and 2012–2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics. Results The number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting. Conclusion Following the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.

show abstract