Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22720835›Full record

ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2013

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics.

Padhraig S Fleming, Jadbinder Seehra, Argy Polychronopoulou, Zbys Fedorowicz, Nikolaos Pandis

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Padhraig S FlemingBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK. padhraig.fleming@gmail.com
Jadbinder Seehra
Argy Polychronopoulou
Zbys Fedorowicz
Nikolaos Pandis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). MATERIALS AND

methodsSystematic reviews (n  =  109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken.

resultsThe mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant.

conclusionCompliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Indexed as

OrthodonticsReview Literature as TopicBibliometricsPeriodicals as Topic

Identifiers

PMID22720835
PMCPMC8805538
OpenAlexW2031692788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.