CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reporting quality of scoping reviews in endodontics: A meta‐research study

Tzanetakis, Giorgos N., Petridis, Xenos, Jakovljevic, Aleksandar, Koletsi, Despina, Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu, Duncan, Henry F., Dummer, Paul M. H.·2024·International Endodontic Journal
DOI 10.1111/iej.14141
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the reporting quality of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in endodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) and to analyse their association with a range of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics. Methods: Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 31 January 2024 to identify scoping reviews in the field of endodontics. An additional search was performed in three leading endodontic journals. Study selection and appraising the quality of the studies was carried out independently by two reviewers. Each of the 20 PRISMA‐ScR items were allocated a score of either 0, 0.5 or 1 to reflect the completeness of the reporting. An item‐specific and overall percentage reporting quality score was calculated and reported through descriptive statistics across a range of publication, as well as methodological/reporting characteristics. A univariable and multivariable quantile regression was performed to identify the effect of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics (year of publication, journal, inclusion of an appropriate reporting guideline, and study registration) on the overall percentage reporting quality score. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was then investigated. Results: A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included for appraisal. Most of the studies were published from 2021 onwards. The overall median reporting quality score was 86%. The most frequent items not included in the studies were: a priori protocol registration (22/40 compliant; 55%), and reporting of funding (16/40 compliant; 40%). Other key elements that were inadequately reported were the abstract (7/40 compliant; 18%), the rationale and justification of the ScR (21/40 compliant; 52%) and the objectives of the study (18/40 compliant; 45%). Studies that adhered to appropriate reporting guidelines were associated with greater reporting quality scores (β‐coefficient: 10; 95%CI: 1.1, 18.9; p = .03). ScRs with protocols registered a priori had significantly greater reporting quality scores (β‐coefficient: 12.5; 95%CI: 6.1, 18.9; p < .001), compared with non‐registered reviews. Conclusions: The reporting quality of the ScRs in endodontics varied and was greater when the ScR protocols were registered a priori and when the authors adhered to reporting guidelines.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/iej.14141

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
FIGURE 1 Flowchart of study selection process.
FIGURE 1 Flowchart of study selection process.CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 5
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
TABLE 2 Frequency distribution of reporting quality scores in the ScRs for each item of the PRISMA-­ ScR checklist.
TABLE 2 Frequency distribution of reporting quality scores in the ScRs for each item of the PRISMA-­ ScR checklist.CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
FIGURE 2 Bar chart of frequency distribution of non-­ reported, inadequately reported and adequately reported items according to the PRISMA scoping review checklist. Abbreviations in the horizontal axis are acronyms derived from the PRISMA-­ ScR checklist items and are listed in Table 2.
FIGURE 2 Bar chart of frequency distribution of non-­ reported, inadequately reported and adequately reported items according to the PRISMA scoping review checklist. Abbreviations in the horizontal axis are acronyms derived from the PRISMA-­ ScR checklist items and are listed in Table 2.CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 8
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 9
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.joen.2021.09.019 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/iej.12621 · DOI
  4. 10.1186/s12874-023-01863-2 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0087 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.012 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.009 · DOI
  9. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1001/jama.2017.19163 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.026 · DOI
  12. 10.1186/s40510-022-00442-3 · DOI
  13. 10.1093/ejo/cjad022 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/iej.13693 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.joen.2018.02.013 · DOI
  16. 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1001/jama.280.3.267 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104161 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2

Metadata

Authors
Tzanetakis, G. N., Petridis, X., Jakovljevic, A., Koletsi, D., Nagendrababu, V., Duncan, H. F., & Dummer, P. M. H.
Affiliations
  • Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Athens Greece
  • Department of Pathophysiology, School of Dental Medicine University of Belgrade Belgrade Serbia
  • Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
  • Department of Restorative Dentistry University of Sharjah, College of Dental Medicine Sharjah UAE
  • Division of Restorative Dentistry &amp; Periodontology Dublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin Dublin Ireland
  • School of Dentistry, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences Cardiff University Cardiff UK
ORCID
Venue
International Endodontic Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-09-10
Volume
57
Issue
12
Pages
1717-1726
ISSN
  • 0143-2885
  • 1365-2591
DOI
10.1111/iej.14141
Cited by
2
References
4
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (vor)

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