Clovis Mariano Faggion1, Raquel Huivin2, Luisiana Aranda2, Nikolaos Pandis3, Marco Alarcon2. 1. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, University of Münster, Waldeyerstraße 30, 48149 Münster, Germany. Electronic address: clovisfaggion@yahoo.com. 2. Academic Department of Clinical Stomatology, Section of Periodontology and Implants, Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University, Lima, Peru. 3. Medical Faculty, School of Dental Medicine, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews is reproducible. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A survey of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016 was conducted. Study selection was performed independently by two authors, and the reproducibility of the selection process was assessed using a tool consisting of 12 criteria. Regression analyses were implemented to evaluate any associations between degrees of reporting (measured by the number of items positively answered) and journal impact factor (IF), presence of meta-analysis, and number of citations of the systematic review in Google Scholar. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty systematic reviews were identified. Following our 12 criteria, none of the systematic reviews had complete reporting of the search strategies and selection process. Eight (1.5%) systematic reviews reported the list of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) after title and abstract assessment. Systematic reviews with more positive answers to the criteria were significantly associated with higher journal IF, number of citations, and inclusion of meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Search strategies and primary study selection process in systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals may not be fully reproducible.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews is reproducible. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A survey of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016 was conducted. Study selection was performed independently by two authors, and the reproducibility of the selection process was assessed using a tool consisting of 12 criteria. Regression analyses were implemented to evaluate any associations between degrees of reporting (measured by the number of items positively answered) and journal impact factor (IF), presence of meta-analysis, and number of citations of the systematic review in Google Scholar. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty systematic reviews were identified. Following our 12 criteria, none of the systematic reviews had complete reporting of the search strategies and selection process. Eight (1.5%) systematic reviews reported the list of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) after title and abstract assessment. Systematic reviews with more positive answers to the criteria were significantly associated with higher journal IF, number of citations, and inclusion of meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Search strategies and primary study selection process in systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals may not be fully reproducible.
Authors: Matthew J Page; David Moher; Fiona M Fidler; Julian P T Higgins; Sue E Brennan; Neal R Haddaway; Daniel G Hamilton; Raju Kanukula; Sathya Karunananthan; Lara J Maxwell; Steve McDonald; Shinichi Nakagawa; David Nunan; Peter Tugwell; Vivian A Welch; Joanne E McKenzie Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-16