{"title":"Reporting of Search Strategy Among Systematic Reviews in Leading Dental Specialty Journals: A Research-On-Research Study.","authors":"Jiayi Li, Xueqian Yu, Lingyue Gao, Lijing Xin, Yan Wang, Feiyang Guo, Fang Hua","doi":"10.1111/joor.13904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Literature searching is one of the main determinants of a systematic review (SR)'s reliability. Thus, adequate reporting of search strategy is essential for the critical appraisal of SRs and evidence-based practice.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals, and to identify factors associated with quality of reporting.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Six leading dental journals with the highest 5-year impact factors in their respective specialty were included. A hand search was undertaken to identify SRs published between 2017 and 2022. Full texts were reviewed by two authors to identify eligible SRs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 15-item checklist based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were then performed.</p><p><strong>Settings and sample population: </strong>A total of 152 reviews were included and assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As for information sources, only 'citation searching' was adequately reported in most reviews 110 (72.4%). Only 23 (15.1%) of the included reviews clearly reported search strategies. Information about peer review was provided in only 10 reviews (6.6%). Only 91 (59.9%) of the included reviews documented the total records clearly. According to multivariable regression analysis, industrial funding (p = 0.012), registration (p = 0.013) and librarian involvement (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals is suboptimal. Researchers, librarians, reviewers and journal editors in dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-S checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of search strategy in SRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":16605,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of oral rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13904","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Literature searching is one of the main determinants of a systematic review (SR)'s reliability. Thus, adequate reporting of search strategy is essential for the critical appraisal of SRs and evidence-based practice.
Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals, and to identify factors associated with quality of reporting.
Materials and methods: Six leading dental journals with the highest 5-year impact factors in their respective specialty were included. A hand search was undertaken to identify SRs published between 2017 and 2022. Full texts were reviewed by two authors to identify eligible SRs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 15-item checklist based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were then performed.
Settings and sample population: A total of 152 reviews were included and assessed.
Results: As for information sources, only 'citation searching' was adequately reported in most reviews 110 (72.4%). Only 23 (15.1%) of the included reviews clearly reported search strategies. Information about peer review was provided in only 10 reviews (6.6%). Only 91 (59.9%) of the included reviews documented the total records clearly. According to multivariable regression analysis, industrial funding (p = 0.012), registration (p = 0.013) and librarian involvement (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.
Conclusions: The reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals is suboptimal. Researchers, librarians, reviewers and journal editors in dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-S checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of search strategy in SRs.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation aims to be the most prestigious journal of dental research within all aspects of oral rehabilitation and applied oral physiology. It covers all diagnostic and clinical management aspects necessary to re-establish a subjective and objective harmonious oral function.
Oral rehabilitation may become necessary as a result of developmental or acquired disturbances in the orofacial region, orofacial traumas, or a variety of dental and oral diseases (primarily dental caries and periodontal diseases) and orofacial pain conditions. As such, oral rehabilitation in the twenty-first century is a matter of skilful diagnosis and minimal, appropriate intervention, the nature of which is intimately linked to a profound knowledge of oral physiology, oral biology, and dental and oral pathology.
The scientific content of the journal therefore strives to reflect the best of evidence-based clinical dentistry. Modern clinical management should be based on solid scientific evidence gathered about diagnostic procedures and the properties and efficacy of the chosen intervention (e.g. material science, biological, toxicological, pharmacological or psychological aspects). The content of the journal also reflects documentation of the possible side-effects of rehabilitation, and includes prognostic perspectives of the treatment modalities chosen.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
