SynthesisJDR clinical and translational research2026
Evaluating Reporting Completeness in Oral Health Clinical Guidelines: A Meta-Research Study.
Synthesis in JDR clinical and translational research, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) reporting guidelines for oral health.
methodsA literature search was carried out in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from March 2016 to December 2023, selecting CPGs related to oral health. The study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by 2 researchers. Guidelines were cross-checked against the 23-item Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE). The results were then collected, and the overall adherence and adherence to each AGREE item and section were calculated. Regression analyses were performed considering journal characteristics, such as quartile, year, and publishing options in journals' guideline endorsement. There were no language restrictions.
resultsTwenty-one CPGs were included in this study. The mean overall AGREE adherence was 48.7%. The results showed considerable variability in the rates of compliance with the reporting guidelines. Three areas appear to have (much) higher levels of compliance than the others, notably "Clarity of Presentation" (83.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.4%-91.8%), "Scope and Purpose" (74.0%, 95% CI: 67.1%-80.9%), and "Stakeholder Involvement" (54.5%, 95% CI: 43.4%-65.7%). The lowest level of agreement was found in "Applicability," with a level of agreement of 18.5% (95% CI: 11.4%-25.6%). Four of the 6 domains had a complete lack (0.0%) of adherence. Journal quartiles were significant, as guidelines published in the second- (B = -27.3%; standard error [SE] = 6.1) and third-quartile (B= -22.8%; SE = 10.6) impact factor journals displayed a lower overall adherence than those published in first-quartile journals. Guideline endorsement by journals was also a significant variable (B = -20.9%, SE = 5.9).
conclusionReporting completeness in dental/oral CPGs is suboptimal and is associated with the journal's quartile and guideline endorsement. Increasing awareness of CPG reporting guidelines and ensuring their rigorous application are decisive toward better adherence.Knowledge Transfer Statement:The quality of reporting in dental and oral clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is low and linked to the journal's impact factor and the endorsement of the guidelines. Enhancing knowledge of CPG reporting guidelines and implementing them rigorously are critical for improved adherence.
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.