CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

There is room for improvement in the use of scoping reviews in dentistry

Zauza, Dionatan, Dotto, Lara, Moher, David, Tricco, Andrea C., Agostini, Bernardo Antonio, Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael·2022·Journal of Dentistry
DOI 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104161
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the reporting of authors' justifications for choosing the scoping review methodology in oral health. Study selection, data and source This is a meta-research study about scoping reviews in dentistry. This study searched for reviews in PubMed and Scopus without year restrictions and restricted to English-language publications. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Each of these reviewers extracted data from half of the included studies considering general study characteristics and scoping reviews objectives, as well as data about whether or not the authors clearly explained why they chose the scoping review framework. Results We included 184 articles. Ninety-seven of the reports did not provide a rationale as to why they chose the scoping review method (52.7%). Regarding the reported aims of the studies, 29.9% (n = 29/87) of the scoping reviews presented more than one. When comparing studies reporting the use of the PRISMA-ScR to those not reporting the PRISMA-ScR, there is no difference in the reporting of a clear explanation of why the authors used a scoping review method. Conclusion There is room for improvement in how authors report their justifications for choosing the scoping review method. Clinical significance Scoping reviews may be used by researchers who are unaware of this method. Educational initiatives should thus be encouraged.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104161

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Innes, 2016, How do we create, and improve, the evidence base, Br. Dent. J., 220, 651, 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.451 · DOI
  2. Sutton, 2019, Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements, Health. Info. Libr. J., 36, 202, 10.1111/hir.12276 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Colquhoun, 2014, Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting, J. Clin .Epidemiol., 67, 1291, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Hua, 2016, Surveys on reporting guideline usage in dental journals, J. Dent. Res., 95, 1207, 10.1177/0022034516657803 · DOI
  5. Sarkis-Onofre, 2017, Research reporting guidelines in dentistry: a survey of editors, Braz. Dent. J., 28, 3, 10.1590/0103-6440201601426 · DOI
  6. Booth, 2012, The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews, Syst. Rev., 1, 2, 10.1186/2046-4053-1-2 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Moher, 2013, The problem of duplicate systematic reviews, BMJ, 347, f5040, 10.1136/bmj.f5040 · DOI
  8. Ge, 2018, Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 93, 45, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.012 · DOI
  9. Dos Santos, 2020, Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry, BMC. Med. Res. Methodol., 20, 57, 10.1186/s12874-020-00939-7 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Nagendrababu, 2021, International Endodontic Journal policy on mandatory prospective (a priori) protocol registration for clinical trials and systematic reviews, Int. Endod. J., 54, 1685, 10.1111/iej.13581 · DOI
  11. Boutron, 2014, Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial, J. Clin. Oncol., 32, 4120, 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.7503 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zauza, D., Dotto, L., Moher, D., Tricco, A. C., Agostini, B. A., & Sarkis-Onofre, R.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Dentistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-07
Volume
122
Pages
104161
ISSN
0300-5712
DOI
10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104161
Cited by
16
References
10
Language
en
Licence

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