Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta‐analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry

Clóvis Mariano Faggion · J. Liu · Fahd Huda · Momen A. Atieh

31 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Periodontal Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Writing and Publishing Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure the correct interpretation of study results by readers. The main objective of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry. Differences in reporting of abstracts in Cochrane and paper-based reviews were also assessed. METHODS: The PubMed electronic database and the Cochrane database for SRs were searched on November 11, 2012, independently and in duplicate, for SRs with meta-analyses related to interventions in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment of the quality of reporting was performed independently and in duplicate, taking into account items related to the effect direction, numerical estimates of effect size, measures of precision, probability and consistency. RESULTS: We initially screened 433 papers and included 146 (127 paper-based and 19 Cochrane reviews, respectively). The direction of evidence was reported in two-thirds of the abstracts while strength of evidence and measure of precision (i.e., confidence interval) were reported in less than half the selected abstracts. Measures of consistency such as I(2) statistics were reported in only 5% of the selected sample of abstracts. Cochrane abstracts reported the limitations of evidence and precision better than paper-based ones. Two items ("meta-analysis" in title and abstract, respectively), were nevertheless better reported in paper-based abstracts. CONCLUSION: Abstracts of SRs with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry currently have no uniform standard of reporting, which may hinder readers' understanding of study outcomes.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 1997Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures 1997Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German 2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews 2002Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study 1998Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses 2008The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals 2007The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: An independent appraisal*

Cited by

2015Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health 2016Quality and clarity in systematic review abstracts: an empirical study 2019Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals 2019Conference abstracts describing systematic reviews on pain were selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.