Rafaela Bassani1, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira2, Matthew J Page3, Andrea C Tricco4, David Moher5, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre6. 1. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, 304 Senador Pinheiro Machado Street, 99070-220, Passo Fundo, Brazil. Electronic address: lela.bassani@gmail.com. 2. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, 304 Senador Pinheiro Machado Street, 99070-220, Passo Fundo, Brazil. Electronic address: gabriel.pereira@imed.edu.br. 3. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia. Electronic address: matthew.page@monash.edu. 4. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th Floor, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M7, Canada. Electronic address: triccoa@smh.ca. 5. Centre for Journalology and Canadian EQUATOR Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, K1H 8L6, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Canada. Electronic address: dmoher@ohri.ca. 6. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, 304 Senador Pinheiro Machado Street, 99070-220, Passo Fundo, Brazil. Electronic address: rafael.onofre@imed.edu.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry indexed within PubMed during the year 2017. METHODS: We searched for SRs in dentistry indexed within PubMed in 2017. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Data related to epidemiological and reporting characteristics were extracted by one of three reviewers. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. Characteristics of SRs were analyzed considering all SRs included and subgrouped by dental specialties. In addition, we explored if the reporting of 24 characteristics of treatment/therapeutic SRs was associated with the self-reported use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement calculating the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each characteristic. RESULTS: 495 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The main specialty considered was Oral Surgery numbering 75 articles. Brazil presented the highest contribution with 117 SRs (23.6%). The reporting quality was variable. Items such as, use of the term "systematic review", or "meta-analysis" in the title or abstract was well reported. In contrast, the study risk of bias/quality assessment method was not reported in 40.5% of SRs. In addition, only four reporting characteristics were described more often in those SR that reported using the PRISMA Statement. CONCLUSION: A large number of SRs were published in dentistry in 2017 and the reporting and epidemiological characteristics varied among dental specialties. There is a mandatory need to improve the quality of reporting and conduct of SRs in dentistry. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Poor reporting and conduction of SRs could generate SRs with imprecise and biased results.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry indexed within PubMed during the year 2017. METHODS: We searched for SRs in dentistry indexed within PubMed in 2017. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Data related to epidemiological and reporting characteristics were extracted by one of three reviewers. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. Characteristics of SRs were analyzed considering all SRs included and subgrouped by dental specialties. In addition, we explored if the reporting of 24 characteristics of treatment/therapeutic SRs was associated with the self-reported use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement calculating the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each characteristic. RESULTS: 495 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The main specialty considered was Oral Surgery numbering 75 articles. Brazil presented the highest contribution with 117 SRs (23.6%). The reporting quality was variable. Items such as, use of the term "systematic review", or "meta-analysis" in the title or abstract was well reported. In contrast, the study risk of bias/quality assessment method was not reported in 40.5% of SRs. In addition, only four reporting characteristics were described more often in those SR that reported using the PRISMA Statement. CONCLUSION: A large number of SRs were published in dentistry in 2017 and the reporting and epidemiological characteristics varied among dental specialties. There is a mandatory need to improve the quality of reporting and conduct of SRs in dentistry. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Poor reporting and conduction of SRs could generate SRs with imprecise and biased results.
Authors: Jayakumar Jayaraman; Vineet Dhar; Kevin J Donly; Ekta Priya; Daniela P Raggio; Noel K Childers; Timothy J Wright; Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu; Mike Clarke; Nigel King; Jan Clarkson; Nicola P T Innes Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 2.757