Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, R. Gonçalves Chaves 457, Pelotas 96015-560, Brazil.
Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas, R. Mal Deodoro, 1160, Pelotas, RS 96020-220, Brazil.
J Dent. 2022 Oct;125:104282. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104282. Epub 2022 Sep 7.
To estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews with metanalysis (SRMAs) in restorative dentistry.
Inclusion criteria were SRMAs of randomized clinical trials of restorative dentistry on survival, success, or failure rates of treatment in humans, with no language or year restriction. SRMAs performed with non-RCTs were excluded. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from inception to April 2022. Outcomes were the prevalence of spin (primary outcome) and completeness of reporting (secondary outcome) in the abstract and full text. Data were reported through means and standard deviations or absolute and relative frequencies. Spin in each item was considered low when occurring in less than 25% of the papers, moderate (25 to 75%), or high (more than 75%).
We identified 7029 studies and 49 unique manuscripts were included. There was a moderate presence of spin in the abstracts and low in full texts. In the abstracts, 65.9% did not report adverse events; while in the abstract and full text, more than 16% reported a conclusion containing recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings. Regarding completeness of reporting, there was poor reporting for most items in the abstract while there was an adequate report in full texts, except for register name and registration number (not reported in 32.7%).
Abstract of SRMAs in restorative dentistry should be better reported. Spin and poor reporting were more frequent in the abstracts, which misleads readers and could lead to inadequate clinical recommendations.
Spin and incomplete reporting are a threat to evidence-based practice, especially in systematic reviews. Therefore, care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders should be aware of the possibility of spin in systematic reviews and other sources to prevent misinterpretation, which could lead to inadequate decisions and treatments.
评估修复牙科中系统评价与荟萃分析（SRMAs）的偏倚发生率和报告完整性。
纳入标准为修复牙科中关于生存、成功率或失败率的随机临床试验的 SRMAs，对人类的治疗，无语言或年份限制。排除了非 RCT 进行的 SRMAs。从建立到 2022 年 4 月，在 PubMed/MEDLINE、Web of Science、Scopus、Embase 和 Cochrane 协作图书馆中进行了搜索。结局是摘要和全文中偏倚（主要结局）和报告完整性（次要结局）的发生率。数据通过平均值和标准差或绝对和相对频率报告。如果每个项目中的偏倚发生在少于 25%的论文中，则认为是低（25%至 75%为中度，高于 75%为高）。
我们确定了 7029 项研究，纳入了 49 篇独特的文献。摘要中有中度偏倚，全文中则偏倚较低。在摘要中，65.9%没有报告不良事件；而在摘要和全文中，超过 16%的报告得出了结论，其中包含了未得到研究结果支持的临床实践建议。关于报告完整性，大多数项目在摘要中报告较差，而在全文中则报告较好，但注册名称和注册号除外（未在 32.7%的报告中报告）。
修复牙科的 SRMAs 摘要应该得到更好的报告。偏倚和报告不完整在摘要中更为常见，这会误导读者，并可能导致临床建议不足。
偏倚和不完整的报告对循证实践构成威胁，尤其是在系统评价中。因此，护理提供者、研究人员和其他利益相关者应该意识到系统评价和其他来源中可能存在的偏倚，以防止误解，从而导致决策和治疗不当。
Zotero 插件