Current status of the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews related to implant dentistry: a literature survey

Ref ID 891
First Author V. Moraschini
Journal INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0901502722004076?via%3Dihub
Keywords Protocols
Abstract / summary
Dentistry
Risk of bias
Disclosure
Low reporting quality
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries
Number of systematic reviews included 310
Summary of Findings From 310 included systematic reviews of implant dentistry indexed in PubMed between 2017-2021. The maximum mean reporting quality score for abstracts (PRISMA-A) was 6.5 and overall reporting score was 54.2%. The items ‘registration’, ‘funding’ and 'limitations of evidence' were the least reported (6.1% and 0% and 25.5% respectively). According to multivariable linear regression, the geographical origin of the articles was the only factor associated with better quality of abstract reporting, with higher overall PRISMA-A score for systematic reviews from Europe when compared to North America (coefficient 0.73; P = 0.049).
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes