{"title":"正畸学系统综述的摘要报告质量：观察研究","authors":"Fahad Alharbi, Rawda O Alghabban","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading orthodontic journals using the PRISMA abstract criteria. Additionally, the study examined characteristics associated with improved abstract reporting quality.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective observational study design was employed. Systematic reviews published between January 2018 and December 2022 in four prominent orthodontic journals were identified through electronic and manual searches. Inclusion criteria focused on articles with \"SR\" or \"meta-analysis\" keywords in the title or abstract. Narrative and historical reviews, scoping reviews, and case reports with extensive literature reviews were not considered as part of the exclusion criteria. The screening was carried out in duplicate and independently by the two authors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The European Journal of Orthodontics had the highest number of included articles, while the Journal of Orthodontics had the lowest. The majority of SRs had authors affiliated with academic institutions. Compliance scores varied across journals and regions, with Asia scoring the highest. Certain checklist items, such as identifying the report as an SR, stating objectives, describing included studies, providing interpretation, and registration, were adequately reported in over 93% of the reviews. However, the reporting of risk of bias and synthesis of results showed room for improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study revealed a significant improvement in the overall Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) score of included SRs, primarily due to enhanced reporting of specific checklist items. However, there remains considerable scope for further improvement in abstract reporting, highlighting the importance of striving to meet higher standards in SR abstracts.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The study showed a notable increase in the PRISMA-A score. However, there is still a need for continued efforts to meet higher reporting standards in SR abstracts. How to cite this article: Alharbi F, Alghabban RO. Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(5):459-462.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study.\",\"authors\":\"Fahad Alharbi, Rawda O Alghabban\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading orthodontic journals using the PRISMA abstract criteria. Additionally, the study examined characteristics associated with improved abstract reporting quality.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective observational study design was employed. Systematic reviews published between January 2018 and December 2022 in four prominent orthodontic journals were identified through electronic and manual searches. Inclusion criteria focused on articles with \\\"SR\\\" or \\\"meta-analysis\\\" keywords in the title or abstract. Narrative and historical reviews, scoping reviews, and case reports with extensive literature reviews were not considered as part of the exclusion criteria. The screening was carried out in duplicate and independently by the two authors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The European Journal of Orthodontics had the highest number of included articles, while the Journal of Orthodontics had the lowest. The majority of SRs had authors affiliated with academic institutions. Compliance scores varied across journals and regions, with Asia scoring the highest. Certain checklist items, such as identifying the report as an SR, stating objectives, describing included studies, providing interpretation, and registration, were adequately reported in over 93% of the reviews. However, the reporting of risk of bias and synthesis of results showed room for improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study revealed a significant improvement in the overall Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) score of included SRs, primarily due to enhanced reporting of specific checklist items. However, there remains considerable scope for further improvement in abstract reporting, highlighting the importance of striving to meet higher standards in SR abstracts.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The study showed a notable increase in the PRISMA-A score. However, there is still a need for continued efforts to meet higher reporting standards in SR abstracts. How to cite this article: Alharbi F, Alghabban RO. Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(5):459-462.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3678\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study.
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading orthodontic journals using the PRISMA abstract criteria. Additionally, the study examined characteristics associated with improved abstract reporting quality.
Materials and methods: A retrospective observational study design was employed. Systematic reviews published between January 2018 and December 2022 in four prominent orthodontic journals were identified through electronic and manual searches. Inclusion criteria focused on articles with "SR" or "meta-analysis" keywords in the title or abstract. Narrative and historical reviews, scoping reviews, and case reports with extensive literature reviews were not considered as part of the exclusion criteria. The screening was carried out in duplicate and independently by the two authors.
Results: The European Journal of Orthodontics had the highest number of included articles, while the Journal of Orthodontics had the lowest. The majority of SRs had authors affiliated with academic institutions. Compliance scores varied across journals and regions, with Asia scoring the highest. Certain checklist items, such as identifying the report as an SR, stating objectives, describing included studies, providing interpretation, and registration, were adequately reported in over 93% of the reviews. However, the reporting of risk of bias and synthesis of results showed room for improvement.
Conclusion: The study revealed a significant improvement in the overall Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) score of included SRs, primarily due to enhanced reporting of specific checklist items. However, there remains considerable scope for further improvement in abstract reporting, highlighting the importance of striving to meet higher standards in SR abstracts.
Clinical significance: The study showed a notable increase in the PRISMA-A score. However, there is still a need for continued efforts to meet higher reporting standards in SR abstracts. How to cite this article: Alharbi F, Alghabban RO. Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(5):459-462.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
