SynthesisPloS one2025
The assessment of language restrictions in abstracts of systematic reviews in dentistry: A meta-research study.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adequate interpretation of findings in systematic reviews can be affected by the lack of information on the language of the examined studies. The study sought to assess the reported information on restrictions set on the language of primary studies examined in systematic reviews published in dentistry. The study also investigated associations between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and language restrictions.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in the Web of Science database for systematic reviews in the field of dentistry. Abstracts published from the inception of the database up to 24 February 2023 were included and relevant information was extracted. Only abstracts published in English were included. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the presence of language restrictions. Additionally, a random sample of 9.2% of the full texts was reviewed to identify differences in the reporting of language restrictions between the abstract and the full texts.
resultsA total of 3922 abstracts were initially retrieved, and 3465 abstracts were included in the analysis based on the eligibility criteria. Approximately 79% (2739) did not report any language information. Only 7% (238) of the abstracts declared no language restrictions in the primary studies selected. Meta-analysis conducted, journal type, reporting of primary study design, actual number of words in abstracts and the country and continent of first authors affiliation were statistically significantly associated with language restrictions of the systematic reviews. However, the absence of information about language restriction appears to be a poor indicator of reporting or not language restriction in the full-text of the article.
conclusionsAbstracts of systematic reviews in dentistry frequently underreport language restrictions applied to the primary studies examined. Various characteristics of systematic reviews are significantly associated with these restrictions, highlighting inconsistencies in reporting practices.
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.