Systematic review
Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.05.009Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Readers usually take the abstract as reference for reading the article's full-text.

  • We evaluated completeness of reporting of a large sample of abstracts of systematic reviews in orthodontics with the PRISMA for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A).

  • The completeness of reporting of abstracts of systematic reviews in orthodontics improved after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

  • Regression analysis showed that some abstract characteristics were associated with better PRISMA-A scores.

Introduction

This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A).

Methods

Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores.

Results

Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting.

Conclusions

The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

Section snippets

Research question

The research question was as follows: What is the impact of PRISMA-A on the completeness of reporting of abstracts of SRs in orthodontics?

Type of study

A SR of available scientific literature was conducted.

Eligibility criteria

Articles with the term “systematic review” in their title, abstract, or full text, and subjects in the field of “orthodontics” were included, regardless of the year of publication. Articles in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, and those in which the authors explicitly declared an intention to conduct a SR

Number of abstracts

In total, 1034 documents were initially retrieved. After discarding duplicates and evaluating article types and main topics, 411 abstracts were retained for further screening. Six abstracts were excluded on language criterion, and 6 more abstracts could not be found despite the endeavors of our librarian and efforts to contact the authors. A total of 389 abstracts of SRs were included in the final analysis. Further details are presented in the flow diagram in Figure, and in the list of

Main findings

The main objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of reporting of abstracts of SRs in orthodontics before and after publication of PRISMA-A. Abstracts published after the publication of the PRISMA-A checklist had significantly better completeness of reporting (P ≤ 0.0001) than with those published before, especially for some of the items. The present results point toward the importance and impact of such checklists for improving the quality of published research.

Conclusions

PRISMA-A may contribute to improving the completeness of reporting of abstracts published in SRs in orthodontics.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Antioquia. The authors thank Dr Luis Gonzalo Alvarez for helping with the statistical analysis.

References (37)

  • J. Wasiak et al.

    Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health

    Clin Oral Investig

    (2016)
  • D. Millett

    Bias in systematic reviews?

    J Orthod

    (2011)
  • M.J. Page et al.

    Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

    Syst Rev

    (2017)
  • B.J. Shea et al.

    Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

    BMC Med Res Methodol

    (2007)
  • J. Kung et al.

    From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance

    Open Dent J

    (2010)
  • B.J. Shea et al.

    External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR)

    PLoS One

    (2007)
  • J. Wasiak et al.

    Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

    J Hand Surg Eur

    (2017)
  • Cited by (0)

    All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.

    View full text