Cargando…
Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study
AIM: To assess the quality of reporting of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in Orthodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Our secondary aim was to identify publication characteristics, such as year of publication, journal, inclusion of a reporting guideline, and...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10411490/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37183724 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjad022 |
_version_ | 1785086678491201536 |
---|---|
author | Mikelis, Filippos Koletsi, Despina |
author_facet | Mikelis, Filippos Koletsi, Despina |
author_sort | Mikelis, Filippos |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: To assess the quality of reporting of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in Orthodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Our secondary aim was to identify publication characteristics, such as year of publication, journal, inclusion of a reporting guideline, and study registration, associated with ScRs reporting quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched as of 1 August 2022 for identification of orthodontic ScRs. This was supplemented by electronic searches within the contents of eleven specialty journals. The item-specific and overall reporting quality score of the examined orthodontic ScRs, based on the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews were recorded. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was further examined. RESULTS: A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included, with a mean reporting quality score of 73.0 per cent (standard deviation = 14). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onwards (32/40; 80.0%). Of the most adequately reported items were the summary of the evidence description in the Discussion (38/40; 95.0%) and the selection of the sources of evidence in the Results section (34/40; 85.0%). Protocol registration and reporting of limitations were missed in almost half of the ScRs (19/40; 47.5%), while less than half studies were adequately justified (18/40; 45.0%). According to the multivariable linear regression, adherence to appropriate reporting guidelines resulted in improved reporting quality score by 10 per cent (β-coefficient: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.002, 0.19; P = 0.04), conditional on year and journal of publication. Year, journal of publication, and registration practices did not appear as significant predictors (P > 0.05 in all instances). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of the examined orthodontic ScRs was suboptimal, with questionable justification for their conduct and certain items being mostly affected. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10411490 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104114902023-08-10 Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study Mikelis, Filippos Koletsi, Despina Eur J Orthod Original Articles AIM: To assess the quality of reporting of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in Orthodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Our secondary aim was to identify publication characteristics, such as year of publication, journal, inclusion of a reporting guideline, and study registration, associated with ScRs reporting quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched as of 1 August 2022 for identification of orthodontic ScRs. This was supplemented by electronic searches within the contents of eleven specialty journals. The item-specific and overall reporting quality score of the examined orthodontic ScRs, based on the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews were recorded. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was further examined. RESULTS: A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included, with a mean reporting quality score of 73.0 per cent (standard deviation = 14). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onwards (32/40; 80.0%). Of the most adequately reported items were the summary of the evidence description in the Discussion (38/40; 95.0%) and the selection of the sources of evidence in the Results section (34/40; 85.0%). Protocol registration and reporting of limitations were missed in almost half of the ScRs (19/40; 47.5%), while less than half studies were adequately justified (18/40; 45.0%). According to the multivariable linear regression, adherence to appropriate reporting guidelines resulted in improved reporting quality score by 10 per cent (β-coefficient: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.002, 0.19; P = 0.04), conditional on year and journal of publication. Year, journal of publication, and registration practices did not appear as significant predictors (P > 0.05 in all instances). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of the examined orthodontic ScRs was suboptimal, with questionable justification for their conduct and certain items being mostly affected. Oxford University Press 2023-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10411490/ /pubmed/37183724 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjad022 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Mikelis, Filippos Koletsi, Despina Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study |
title | Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study |
title_full | Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study |
title_fullStr | Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study |
title_full_unstemmed | Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study |
title_short | Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study |
title_sort | reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. an empirical study |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10411490/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37183724 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjad022 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mikelisfilippos reportingcompletenessofscopingreviewsinorthodonticliteratureupto2022anempiricalstudy AT koletsidespina reportingcompletenessofscopingreviewsinorthodonticliteratureupto2022anempiricalstudy |