Abstract
Background: Literature searching is one of the main determinants of a systematic review (SR) ’s reliability. Thus, adequate reporting of search strategy is essential for the critical appraisal of SRs and evidence-based practice.
Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals, and to identify factors associated with quality of reporting.
Materials and Methods: Six leading dental journals with the highest five-year impact factors in their respective specialty were included. A hand search was undertaken to identify SRs published between 2017 and 2022. Full texts were reviewed by two authors to identify eligible SRs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 15-item checklist based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were then performed.
Settings and Sample population: A total of 152 reviews were included and assessed.
Results: As for information sources, only ‘citation searching’ was adequately reported in most reviews 110 (72.4%). Only 23 (15.1%) of the included reviews clearly reported search strategies. Information about peer review was provided in only 10 reviews (6.6%). Only 91 (59.9%) of the included reviews documented the total records clearly. According to multivariable regression analysis, industrial funding (P=0.012), registration (P=0.013) and librarian involvement (P=0.004)
were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.
Conclusions: The reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals is suboptimal. Researchers, librarians, reviewers and journal editors in dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-S checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of search strategy in SRs.
Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals, and to identify factors associated with quality of reporting.
Materials and Methods: Six leading dental journals with the highest five-year impact factors in their respective specialty were included. A hand search was undertaken to identify SRs published between 2017 and 2022. Full texts were reviewed by two authors to identify eligible SRs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 15-item checklist based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were then performed.
Settings and Sample population: A total of 152 reviews were included and assessed.
Results: As for information sources, only ‘citation searching’ was adequately reported in most reviews 110 (72.4%). Only 23 (15.1%) of the included reviews clearly reported search strategies. Information about peer review was provided in only 10 reviews (6.6%). Only 91 (59.9%) of the included reviews documented the total records clearly. According to multivariable regression analysis, industrial funding (P=0.012), registration (P=0.013) and librarian involvement (P=0.004)
were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.
Conclusions: The reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals is suboptimal. Researchers, librarians, reviewers and journal editors in dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-S checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of search strategy in SRs.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Journal of Oral Rehabilitation |
| Early online date | 26 Nov 2024 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 26 Nov 2024 |
Keywords
- dentistry
- systenatic reviews
- search strategy
- reporting quality
- methodology
- reporting guidelines