Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry indexed within PubMed during the year 2017.Methods 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.Results 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.Conclusion 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.Clinical significance Poor reporting and conduction of SRs could generate SRs with imprecise and biased results.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
India contributed 3% to the global share of systematic reviews in dentistry in the PubMed database during 2017.
“According to Bassani R et al., India contributed 3% to the global share of systematic reviews in dentistry in the PubMed database during the year 2017 (6).”
From Research Publication Challenges Faced by Dentists in India: A Narrative Review of Multilevel Barriers (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
Encouraging collaboration among universities and organising networking events can further promote knowledge exchange and stimulate innovation.
“Encouraging collaboration among universities and organising networking events can further promote knowledge exchange and stimulate innovation (6).”
From Research Publication Challenges Faced by Dentists in India: A Narrative Review of Multilevel Barriers (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
Other studies have also highlighted Brazil as an important source of scientific production in dentistry, especially for systematic reviews.
“Other studies have also highlighted Brazil as an important source of scientific production in dentistry, especially for systematic reviews 25 .”
From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
Cites
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223 · see citing works
Self-citationSystematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006 · Cited by 2,184 · see citing works
Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Tibshirani, R. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8 · Cited by 1,597 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses
IOANNIDIS, J. P. A. (2016) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210 · Cited by 1,483 · see citing works
Page, M. J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A. C., Catalá-López, F., Li, L., Reid, E. K., Sarkis-Onofre, R., et al. (2016) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 · Cited by 768 · see citing works
Self-citationIncreasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?
Moher, D., Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Nasser, M., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Korevaar, D. A., Graham, I. D., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00307-4 · Cited by 462 · see citing works
Self-citationBrown, S. C., Hutton, B., Clifford, T., Coyle, D., Grima, D. T., Wells, G. A., & Cameron, C. G. (2014) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-110 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Synthesizing Evidence: Shifting the Focus From Individual Studies to the Body of Evidence
Murad, M. H., & Montori, V. M. (2013) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.5616 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Cardiologia, N. D. (2012) · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals
Hua, F., Walsh, T., Glenny, A., & Worthington, H. V. (2016) · Journal of Dental Research · doi:10.1177/0022034516657803 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
A Descriptive Analysis of Oral Health Systematic Reviews Published 1991–2012: Cross Sectional Study
Saltaji, H., Cummings, G. G., Armijo-Olivo, S. L., Major, M. P., Amin, M. S., Major, P. W., Hartling, L., & Flores‐Mir, C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074545 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Koletsi, D., Fleming, P. S., Behrents, R. G., Lynch, C. D., & Pandis, N. (2017) · Journal of Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.009 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Endodontics
Nagendrababu, V., Pulikkotil, S. J., Sultan, O. S., Jayaraman, J., & Peters, O. A. (2018) · Journal of Endodontics · doi:10.1016/j.joen.2018.02.013 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Research Reporting Guidelines in Dentistry: A Survey of Editors
Sarkis‐Onofre, R., Cenci, M. S., Moher, D., & Pereira‐Cenci, T. (2016) · Brazilian Dental Journal · doi:10.1590/0103-6440201601426 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationEl-Rabbany, M., Li, S., Bui, S., Muir, J. M., Bhandari, M., & Azarpazhooh, A. (2017) · Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice · doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.06.004 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry
dos Santos, M. B. F., Agostini, B. A., Bassani, R., Pereira, G. K. R., & Sarkis-Onofre, R. (2020) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-00939-7 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationVásquez-Cárdenas, J., Zapata-Noreña, Ó., Carvajal-Flórez, Á., Barbosa-Liz, D. M., Giannakopoulos, N. N., & Faggion, C. M. (2019) · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.05.009 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Adobes Martin, M., Santamans Faustino, S., Llario Almiñana, I., Aiuto, R., Rotundo, R., & Garcovich, D. (2021) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01223-y · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study
Santos, W. V. D. O., Dotto, L., Ferreira, T. D. G. M., & Sarkis-Onofre, R. (2024) · Journal of Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104869 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationGlobal mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry
Prado, M. C., Dotto, L., Agostini, B., & Sarkis-Onofre, R. (2024) · Brazilian Dental Journal · doi:10.1590/0103-644020246233 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationSaran, K., Krishnaprakash, G., Siluvai, S., & Indumathi, K. (2026) · Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2026/78238.22217
- Authors
- Bassani, R., Pereira, G. K. R., Page, M. J., Tricco, A. C., Moher, D., & Sarkis-Onofre, R.
- Affiliations
- Atitus Educação (BR)
- Monash University (AU)
- St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Dentistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 82
- Pages
- 71-84
- ISSN
- 0300-5712 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2911469614
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 1.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Dentistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Meridional Foundation
- Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel
- Australian National Health
- Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (1088535)
- Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis
- University Research Chair, University of Ottawa
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- dentistry, reporting quality, PRISMA, risk of bias assessment, dental specialties, oral surgery, research output, bibliometric analysis
- MeSH terms
- Abstracting and Indexing, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Brazil, Dentistry, Bias, Odds Ratio
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
