ReviewAustralian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc2026
Spin and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Comparing Single- and Multiple-Visit Endodontic Treatment: A Meta-Research Study.
Review in Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc, 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
Abstract
This study evaluated the methodological quality and presence of spin in systematic reviews with meta-analyses comparing single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic treatment, and investigated factors associated. Systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials were included without restrictions on language or publication year. Narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, non-randomised or non-clinical studies, and conference abstracts were excluded. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and grey literature in January 2025. Spin was classified using the Yavchitz et al. framework, and methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2. Data extraction and spin assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Spin was identified in 12 studies of abstracts and 10 of full texts, mainly as a misleading interpretation. Most reviews were rated as low or critically low quality. Positive results and absence of risk-of-bias assessment were associated with increased spin in full texts.
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.