Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry
Open accessAbstract
Background: The aims of this study were to assess whether the previous registration of a systematic review (SR) is associated with the improvement of the quality of the report of SRs and whether SR registration reduced outcome reporting bias. Methods: We performed a search in PubMed for SRs in dentistry indexed in 2017. Data related to SR registration and reporting characteristics were extracted. We analyzed if the reporting of 21 characteristics of included SRs was associated with the prospective registration of protocols or reporting of a previously established protocol. The association between prospective registering of protocols, reporting of funding and number of included studies versus outcome reporting bias was tested via multivariable logistic regression. Results: We included 495 SRs. One hundred and 62 (32.7%) SRs reported registering the SR protocol or working from a previously established protocol. Thirteen reporting characteristics were described statistically significant in SRs registered versus SRs that were not. Publication bias assessment and Report the number of participants showed the highest effects favoring the register (RR 1.59, CI 95% 1.19–2.12; RR 1.58, CI 95% 1.31–1.92 respectively). Moreover, Registration was not significantly linked with the articles’ reporting statistical significance (OR 0.96, CI 95% 0.49–1.90). Conclusion: There is a positive influence of previously registering a protocol in the final report quality of SRs in dentistry. However, we did not observe an association between protocol registration and reduction in outcome reporting bias.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Compared to dental research involving other types of studies, this analysis revealed the highest value for reporting of protocol registration (50.36%).
“However, compared to dental research involving other types of studies [29, 34], our analysis revealed the highest value for the reporting of protocol registration (50.36%).”
From Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 61
- Authors
- dos Santos, M. B. F., Agostini, B. A., Bassani, R., Pereira, G. K. R., & Sarkis-Onofre, R.
- Affiliations
- Atitus Educação (BR)
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2020-03-11
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-57
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7065343
- OpenAlex
- W3012001714
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- 001 (This study was conducted in a Graduate Program supported by CAPES, Brazil (Finance Code 001).)
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- reporting quality, selective reporting, publication bias, funding disclosure
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Dentistry, Humans, Prospective Studies, Reference Standards, Research Design, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Publication Bias, PubMed, Research Report
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
