Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the reporting completeness of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading dental specialty journals. Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify SR s published in seven dental specialty journals and in the C ochrane D atabase of S ystematic R eviews. Abstract reporting completeness was evaluated using a checklist derived from the P referred R eporting I tems for S ystematic R eviews and M eta‐A nalyses (prisma) guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Two‐hundred and eighteen SR abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions (94%), objectives (96%), data sources (81%), eligibility criteria (77%), and conclusions (97%) was adequate in the majority of reviews. However, inadequate reporting of participants (18%), results (42%), effect size (14%), level of significance (60%), and trial registration (100%) was commonplace. The mean overall reporting score was 79.1% (95% CI, 77.6–80.6). Only journal of publication was a significant predictor of overall reporting, with inferior results for all journals relative to C ochrane reviews, with scores ranging from −4.3% (95% CI, −8.74 to 0.08) to −35.6% (95% CI, −42.0 to −24.3) for the I nternational J ournal of P rosthodontics and the B ritish J ournal of O ral and M axillofacial S urgery, respectively. Improved reporting of dental SR abstracts is needed and should be encouraged, as these abstracts may underpin influential clinical decisions.