- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries
- 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 |