ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
Quality of Reporting Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Preventive Dentistry: An Assessment Using the PRISMA 2020 Extension.
Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest level of scientific evidence for clinical recommendations and policy drafting in preventive dentistry. As readers frequently rely on abstracts for rapid appraisal, complete and transparent reporting is critical. The aim was to assess the reporting quality of abstracts of SRs and MAs published in international preventive dentistry journals using the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 extension for abstracts and to identify predictors of better reporting. Methods: This quality-of-reporting study analyzed 157 structured abstracts from seven purposively selected journals (quartiles 1-3) published between 2020 and 2022. Two independent, calibrated reviewers scored each abstract against the 12-item PRISMA 2020 checklist (0 = not reported, 1 = partially reported, 2 = fully reported). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were used for analysis. Results: Only the identification of the report as an SR/MA achieved 100% compliance across all journals. Moderate compliance was found for objectives and eligibility criteria. However, reporting was markedly suboptimal for synthesis methods, risk of bias, funding, and registration. Regression analysis revealed that a higher journal impact factor, larger journal volume, and affiliation with a professional society were significantly associated with higher reporting scores ( Conclusion: Adherence to PRISMA 2020 abstract guidelines in preventive dentistry remains suboptimal. Enhanced editorial oversight and strict adherence to reporting checklists are essential to improve the transparency and reproducibility of evidence used to shape clinical and policy decisions.
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.