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

• Published in: International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery Vol. 52; no. 5; pp. 613 - 618
• Main Authors: Moraschini, V., Arantes, E.R., de Queiroz, T.R., Kischinhevsky, I.C.C., Calasans-Maia, M.D., Louro, R.S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Elsevier Inc 01-05-2023
• Subjects: Abstracts; Checklist; Data quality; Dental implant; Dental Implants; Europe; Humans; Methodological study; Systematic review; Europe; Systematic review; Data quality; Dental implant; Methodological study; Abstracts
• ISSN: 0901-5027; 1399-0020
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.09.032

The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews (SRs) related to implant dentistry and to assess the possible factors associated with the reporting quality. Abstracts of SRs in the field of implant dentistry, published in the last 5 years, were searched. The reporting quality was assessed and scored using the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist (PRISMA-A). The overall PRISMA-A score (OPS) and relative score (OPS%) per review were calculated according to adherence to the criteria presented in the checklist. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify possible factors associated with reporting quality. Overall, 310 SRs were eligible for this study. Based on the maximum PRISMA-A score (score of 12), the mean OPS was 6.5 and OPS% was 54.2%. The items ‘title’, ‘objectives’, and ‘number of included studies’ were those most frequently reported in the abstracts, while the items ‘registration’ and ‘funding’ were the least reported. According to multivariable linear regression, the geographical origin of the articles was the only factor associated with better quality of abstract reporting, with higher OPS for SRs from Europe when compared to North America (coefficient 0.73; P = 0.049). The reporting quality of abstracts in SRs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal and needs to be improved. Journals should encourage adherence to reporting checklists in SRs.