Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: An assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines
Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: An assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines
复制标题
牙科手术系统综述摘要的报告质量：使用 PRISMA 进行摘要指南评估
DOI：
10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103471
复制
发表时间：
2020-11-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Song, Yaling
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Li, Ting;Hua, Fang;Song, Yaling
目的：评估和比较在摘要的系统综述和荟萃分析扩展的首选报告项目发布前后发表的牙科手术系统综述（SR）摘要的报告质量（PRISMA-A），并确定与报告质量相关的因素。方法：检索PubMed 2010-2012年（PRISMA前阶段）和2017-2019年（PRISMA后阶段）发表的摘要。报告质量进行了评估，并使用修改后的13项PRSIMA-A检查表进行评分。采用风险比（RR）比较两个时期各项目的充分报告率。单变量和多变量线性回归分析，以确定与报告quality.Results相关的因素：共160个摘要被纳入和评估。在大多数摘要中仅充分报告了4个项目（“目的”、“主要结局结果”、"效应描述“和”解释“）（> 75%）。根据多变量分析，（P = 0.001），在后PRISMA时期发表（P = 0.025）和来自亚洲的地理来源（P = 0.025）或南美洲（P = 0.015）与较高的报告质量显著相关。结论/临床意义：PRISMA-A出版后，牙科手术中SR摘要的报告质量有了显著提高，但仍不理想。牙科手术学的研究人员、审稿人和期刊编辑需要熟悉PRISMA-A检查表，并共同努力改进SR摘要的报告。
Objectives: To assess and compare the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in operative dentistry published before and after the release of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts (PRISMA-A), and to identify factors associated with reporting quality.Methods: PubMed was searched for abstracts published during 2010-2012 (Pre-PRISMA period) and 2017-2019 (Post-PRISMA period). Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 13-item PRSIMA-A checklist. Risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the adequate reporting rate of each item between the two periods. Uni-variable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.Results: A total of 160 abstracts were included and assessed. Only four items ('objective', 'results of main outcomes', 'description of the effect' and 'interpretation') were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75 %). According to the multivariable analysis, greater word count (P = 0.001), being published in the Post-PRISMA period (P = 0.025) and geographic origin from Asia (P = 0.025) or South America (P = 0.015) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.Conclusions/clinical significance: The reporting quality of SR abstracts in operative dentistry had improved significantly after the publication of PRISMA-A, but was still suboptimal. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors in operative dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-A checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of SR abstracts.