SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2026
Do systematic reviews of non- and micro-invasive treatment for caries lesions in children and adolescents adhere to the PRISMA reporting guidelines? A meta-research.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical application of robot-assisted fixation for calcaneal fractures: a meta-analysis with subgroup comparisons.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate whether systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analysis or network meta-analysis focusing on non- and micro-invasive treatment of caries lesions in children and adolescents adhere to the PRISMA reporting guidelines and the PRISMA checklist and their extensions for Abstracts and Network Meta-analysis (NMA). MATERIAL AND
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search up to 1st of September 2025 in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Gray literature was assessed through ProQuest and Epistemonikos, with no language or publication date restrictions. We included SRs focused on non- and micro-invasive caries treatment and excluded study protocols of SRs and SRs focused on special populations. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the included systematic reviews and assessed the adherence to PRISMA and its extensions as a reporting guideline.
resultsWe retrieved 1221 publications; after duplicate removal and eligibility process, 45 studies were considered for further data extraction and 36 SRs for the assessment of the adherence to the PRISMA checklists. Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence to the PRISMA checklist, and the mean overall adherence was 70.8%. Thirty-six SRs (80%) reported following PRISMA. The PRISMA item with the lowest adherence was protocol pre-registration (n = 2; 12.5%). In contrast, the SRs reported following the PRISMA-NMA extension showed higher adherence to the checklist items.
conclusionsDespite the authors' declaration of adhering to PRISMA, several reporting items were not fully addressed in the systematic reviews on non- and micro-invasive caries treatments. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting limits clinicians' ability to interpret the sources of discordant findings across reviews and constrains the application of evidence-based judgments in pediatric caries management. Given the overall low reporting quality, not only is further improvement in these SRs essential, but some recommended management strategies should also be interpreted and implemented with caution until more robust and transparently reported evidence becomes available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41991679What 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.