The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reporting quality of scoping reviews in dental public health
Abstract
Background: The study aimed to explore reporting characteristics of scoping reviews in dental public health and the impact of some factors on the reporting quality. Methods: This study searched for dental public health scoping reviews in PubMed and Scopus without year restrictions and restricted to English-language publications. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. One reviewer, after training, extracted data from included studies considering general study characteristics and reporting characteristics. The impact of PRISMA-ScR publication, journal endorsement, and use of study protocol on the reporting was explored. Results: Eighty-one scoping reviews were included. Five items presented rates of appropriate reporting higher than 80% considering the overall percentage. Related to the impact of PRISMA-ScR publication, six items were found more often in scoping reviews published after the publication of PRISMA-ScR than in scoping reviews published before the publication of PRISMA-ScR. With regards to journals endorsement, only two reporting characteristics were found more often in scoping reviews published in journals that endorse the PRISMA-ScR statement than in scoping reviews published in non-endorsers journals. Last, regarding the use of the pre-specified protocol, five reporting characteristics presented differences in studies reporting the use of pre-specified protocol than in studies that did not mention the use of a protocol. All differences were statistically significant. Conclusions: Important information is missing in the included scoping reviews demonstrating crucial reporting problems.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“There were four papers that also emphasized the deficiency of reporting quality in ScRs across different areas of research (eg, nursing, dental health) despite the existence of current reporting guidelines [5,7,8,62].”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
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
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x · Cited by 11,385
(2020) · JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.46658/jbimes-20-12 · Cited by 2,545
A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., Levac, D., Ng, C., Sharpe, J. P., Wilson, K., et al. (2016) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 · Cited by 2,250 · cited 1×
“Previous studies have reported that a considerable number of studies is often poorly reported [9, 10], which might result in biased or invalidated conclusions leading to loss of time and resources.”
ResultVeroniki, A. A., Tsokani, S., Zevgiti, S., Pagkalidou, I., Kontouli, K.-M., Ambarcioglu, P., Pandis, N., Lunny, C., Nikolakopoulou, A., Papakonstantinou, T., et al. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01780-9 · Cited by 53 · cited 1×
“The importance of study protocol and its impact on the reporting quality was already highlighted in previous publications [14, 15].”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Dotto L, Kinalski MdA, Machado PS, Pereira GKR, Sarkis-Onofre R, dos Santos MBF. The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID-19: An analysis of PROSPERO records. J Evid Based Med. 2021;14:56–64. · DOI
- Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-Based Public Health: A Fundamental Concept for Public Health Practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:175–201. · DOI
- Li S, Cao M, Zhu X. Evidence-based practice: Knowledge, attitudes, implementation, facilitators, and barriers among community nurses-systematic review. Medicine. 2019;98: e17209. · DOI
- Pereira VC, Silva SN, Carvalho VKS, Zanghelini F, Barreto JOM. Strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in public health: an overview of systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20:13. · DOI
- France K, Sollecito TP. How Evidence-Based Dentistry Has Shaped the Practice of Oral Medicine. Dent Clin North Am. 2019;63:83–95. · DOI
- Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85. · DOI · Paper page
- Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, Kastner M, Moher D. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291–4. · DOI · Paper page
- Zauza D, Dotto L, Moher D, Tricco AC, Agostini BA, Sarkis-Onofre R. There is room for improvement in the use of scoping reviews in dentistry. J Dent. 2022;122:104161. · DOI · Paper page
- Dos Santos MBF, Agostini BA, Bassani R, Pereira GKR, Sarkis-Onofre R. Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:57. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review
Tricco, A. C., Robinson, E., Straus, S. E., Colquhoun, H., Godfrey, C. M., Moher, D., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Logan, S., Elsman, E. B. M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112314 · Cited by 9
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dotto, L., dos Santos, M. B. F., & Sarkis-Onofre, R.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2023-02-27
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1471-2288
- PMC
- PMC9972695
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 5
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (19/2551–0001942–4)
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
