Kiriakou Juliana, Pandis Nikolaos, Fleming Padhraig S, Madianos Phoebus, Polychronopoulou Argy
Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
J Dent. 2013 Dec;41(12):1181-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.09.006. Epub 2013 Sep 26.
Abstracts of systematic reviews are of critical importance, as consumers of research often do not access the full text. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading oral implantology journals.
Six specialty journals were screened for SRs between 2008 and 2012. A 16-item checklist, based on the PRISMA statement, was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting.
Ninety-three SR abstracts were included in this study. The majority were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research (43%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 72.5% (95% CI: 70.8-74.2). Most abstracts were structured (97.9%), adequately reporting objectives (97.9%) and conclusions (93.6%). Conversely, inadequate reporting of methods of the study, background (79.6%), appraisal (65.6%), and data synthesis (65.6%) were observed. Registration of reviews was not reported in any of the included abstracts. Multivariate analysis revealed no difference in reporting quality with respect to continent, number of authors, or meta-analysis conduct.
The results of this study suggest that the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in implantology journals requires further improvement.
Better reporting of SR abstracts is particularly important in ensuring the reliability of research findings, ultimately promoting the practice of evidence-based dentistry. Optimal reporting of SR abstracts should be encouraged, preferably by endorsing the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines.
系统评价的摘要至关重要，因为研究的受众通常无法获取全文。本研究旨在评估领先的口腔种植学杂志中系统评价（SR）摘要的报告质量。
筛选了六种专业期刊在2008年至2012年间发表的系统评价。使用基于PRISMA声明的16项清单来检查摘要报告的完整性。
本研究纳入了93篇系统评价摘要。大多数发表于《临床口腔种植研究》（43%）。总体报告质量的平均得分是72.5%（95%可信区间：70.8 - 74.2）。大多数摘要结构合理（97.9%），能充分报告目的（97.9%）和结论（93.6%）。相反，研究方法、背景（79.6%）、评价（65.6%）和数据合成（65.6%）的报告不足。纳入的任何摘要均未报告系统评价的注册情况。多变量分析显示，在报告质量方面，不同大洲、作者数量或是否进行荟萃分析并无差异。
本研究结果表明，种植学杂志中系统评价摘要的报告质量需要进一步提高。
更好地报告系统评价摘要对于确保研究结果的可靠性尤为重要，最终促进循证牙科的实践。应鼓励对系统评价摘要进行最佳报告，最好是通过认可PRISMA摘要指南来实现。
