Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics

This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry indexed within PubMed during the year 2017. We searched for SRs in dentistry indexed within PubMed in 2017. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Data rela...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of dentistry Vol. 82; pp. 71 - 84
Main Authors: Bassani, Rafaela, Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha, Page, Matthew J., Tricco, Andrea C., Moher, David, Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.03.2019
Elsevier Limited
Subjects:
Abstracting and Indexing - statistics & numerical data
Bias
Brazil
Conduction
Confidence intervals
Data processing
Dentistry
Dentistry - statistics & numerical data
Epidemiology
Funding
Literature reviews
Odds Ratio
PRISMA
Quality assessment
Quality control
Reporting
Reviews
Statistical methods
Studies
Surgery
Systematic reviews
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Brazil
United States > US
Systematic reviews
PRISMA
Dentistry
Reporting
ISSN:0300-5712, 1879-176X, 1879-176X
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry indexed within PubMed during the year 2017. 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. 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. 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. Poor reporting and conduction of SRs could generate SRs with imprecise and biased results.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0300-5712
1879-176X
1879-176X
DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2019.01.014