Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, 304 Senador Pinheiro Machado Street, 99070-220, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia.
J Dent. 2019 Mar;82:71-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.01.014. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry indexed within PubMed during the year 2017.
We searched for SRs in dentistry indexed within PubMed in 2017. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Data related to epidemiological and reporting characteristics were extracted by one of three reviewers. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. Characteristics of SRs were analyzed considering all SRs included and subgrouped by dental specialties. In addition, we explored if the reporting of 24 characteristics of treatment/therapeutic SRs was associated with the self-reported use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement calculating the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each characteristic.
495 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The main specialty considered was Oral Surgery numbering 75 articles. Brazil presented the highest contribution with 117 SRs (23.6%). The reporting quality was variable. Items such as, use of the term "systematic review", or "meta-analysis" in the title or abstract was well reported. In contrast, the study risk of bias/quality assessment method was not reported in 40.5% of SRs. In addition, only four reporting characteristics were described more often in those SR that reported using the PRISMA Statement.
A large number of SRs were published in dentistry in 2017 and the reporting and epidemiological characteristics varied among dental specialties. There is a mandatory need to improve the quality of reporting and conduct of SRs in dentistry.
Poor reporting and conduction of SRs could generate SRs with imprecise and biased results.
本研究旨在评估 2017 年 PubMed 中收录的牙科学系统评价（SR）的流行病学和报告特征。
我们在 2017 年检索了 PubMed 中收录的牙科学 SR。两名评审员独立进行研究选择。由其中一名评审员提取与流行病学和报告特征相关的数据。对数据进行描述性分析。根据纳入的所有 SR 以及按牙科专业分组的特点来分析 SR 的特点。此外，我们还探讨了治疗/疗法 SR 24 个特征的报告是否与报告人自报使用《系统评价和荟萃分析优先报告项目》有关，计算每个特征的风险比（RR）及其 95%置信区间。
495 篇文章符合入选标准。主要考虑的专业是口腔外科，有 75 篇文章。巴西的贡献最高，有 117 篇 SR（23.6%）。报告质量参差不齐。例如，在标题或摘要中使用“系统评价”或“荟萃分析”等术语的报告较好。相比之下，40.5%的 SR 未报告研究偏倚/质量评估方法。此外，只有四个报告特征在报告使用 PRISMA 声明的 SR 中描述得更频繁。
2017 年牙科学发表了大量的 SR，报告和流行病学特征在不同的牙科专业中存在差异。有必要提高牙科学 SR 的报告和实施质量。
SR 报告和实施不佳可能会导致 SR 结果不精确和存在偏倚。
