Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32160871›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry.

Mateus Bertolini Fernandes Dos Santos, Bernardo Antônio Agostini, Rafaela Bassani, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre

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

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.0field-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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
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 1 country.

Mateus Bertolini Fernandes Dos SantosGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street, Pelotas, 96015-560, Brazil.
Bernardo Antônio AgostiniGraduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, 304 Senador Pinheiro Machado Street, Passo Fundo, 99070-220, Brazil.
Rafaela BassaniGraduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, 304 Senador Pinheiro Machado Street, Passo Fundo, 99070-220, Brazil.
Gabriel Kalil Rocha PereiraGraduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, 304 Senador Pinheiro Machado Street, Passo Fundo, 99070-220, Brazil.
Rafael Sarkis-OnofreGraduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, 304 Senador Pinheiro Machado Street, Passo Fundo, 99070-220, Brazil. rafaelonofre@gmail.com.
Faculdade Meridional · BRUniversidade Federal de Pelotas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aims of this study were to assess whether the previous registration of a systematic review (SR) is associated with the improvement of the quality of the report of SRs and whether SR registration reduced outcome reporting bias.

methodsWe performed a search in PubMed for SRs in dentistry indexed in 2017. Data related to SR registration and reporting characteristics were extracted. We analyzed if the reporting of 21 characteristics of included SRs was associated with the prospective registration of protocols or reporting of a previously established protocol. The association between prospective registering of protocols, reporting of funding and number of included studies versus outcome reporting bias was tested via multivariable logistic regression.

resultsWe included 495 SRs. One hundred and 62 (32.7%) SRs reported registering the SR protocol or working from a previously established protocol. Thirteen reporting characteristics were described statistically significant in SRs registered versus SRs that were not. Publication bias assessment and Report the number of participants showed the highest effects favoring the register (RR 1.59, CI 95% 1.19-2.12; RR 1.58, CI 95% 1.31-1.92 respectively). Moreover, Registration was not significantly linked with the articles' reporting statistical significance (OR 0.96, CI 95% 0.49-1.90).

conclusionThere is a positive influence of previously registering a protocol in the final report quality of SRs in dentistry. However, we did not observe an association between protocol registration and reduction in outcome reporting bias.

Indexed as

DentistryHumansLogistic ModelsMultivariate AnalysisOutcome Assessment, Health CareProspective StudiesPublication BiasPubMedReference StandardsResearch DesignResearch ReportSystematic Reviews as TopicDentistryOutcome reporting biasProtocol registrationReportingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32160871
PMCPMC7065343
OpenAlexW3012001714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.