ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Assessment of Reporting Quality in Orthodontic Systematic Reviews: An Observational Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of orthodontic systematic reviews published between 2018 and 2022. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted, analyzing 2114 articles from selected orthodontic journals. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the included systematic reviews. Compliance scores were calculated for each review, and the overall compliance score was determined. Results: The European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) contributed the most systematic reviews (49%), followed by the Journal of Orthodontics (JO, 8%). Europe had the highest first-author proportion (42%), while Asia accounted for 26%. The majority of reviews involved 4-6 authors (59%). The overall compliance score was 79.2% (95% CI: 78.1-80.3). EJO had the highest compliance (79.9%, 95% CI: 78.3-81.5), followed by Angle Orthodontist (78.9%, 95% CI: 76.8-81.1). Compliance scores varied across regions, with Europe scoring the highest (79.7%, 95% CI: 77.9-81.6). Reporting key Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist items, such as meta-analysis methods and reporting bias assessment, was inadequate. Conclusion: The reporting quality of orthodontic systematic reviews varied, highlighting the need for improvement in areas such as reporting meta-analysis methods and addressing reporting bias. Adherence to the PRISMA guidelines should be emphasized to enhance transparency and strengthen the credibility of orthodontic systematic reviews, supporting evidence-based decision-making in orthodontic practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.