William E. Laupus Health Sciences Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, United States of America.
Center for Evidence-Based Policy, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2023 Dec 14;18(12):e0295864. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295864. eCollection 2023.
The PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals.
This study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2009 (n = 211) and 2012-2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics.
The number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting.
Following the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.
PRISMA 指南于 2009 年发布，旨在解决系统评价和荟萃分析（SR/MAs）中关键方法学细节报告不充分的问题。本研究旨在评估 PRISMA 对口腔医学期刊全文报告质量的影响。
本研究评估了 PRISMA（2009 年）对 1993-2009 年（n=211）和 2012-2018 年（n=618）发表在口腔医学高影响力期刊上的 SR/MAs 中 13 项方法学细节的影响。本研究还研究了 PRISMA 在发表后的纳入研究的摘要或全文中描述使用的频率，以及 PRISMA 的描述使用对报告水平的影响。本研究还研究了在作者指南中纳入 PRISMA 以及研究团队特征的潜在影响。
PRISMA 发布后，SR/MAs 中报告的项目数量增加（PRISMA 前：M=7.83，SD=3.267；PRISMA 后：M=10.55，SD=1.4）。PRISMA 后，作者在摘要中很少提及 PRISMA（8.9%），并且在 59.87%的 SR/MAs 中描述了在全文中使用 PRISMA。在全文中描述使用 PRISMA 表明，其意图（报告指南）未被很好地理解，超过三分之一的 SR/MAs（35.6%）将 PRISMA 描述为指导审查的进行。然而，任何对 PRISMA 的描述使用都与报告质量的提高有关。在所检查的作者团队特征中，只有作者团队规模与报告质量的提高呈正相关。
PRISMA 于 2009 年发布后，发表在口腔医学高影响力期刊上的系统评价/荟萃分析的关键方法学细节报告水平有所提高。在全文中提到 PRISMA 与报告水平之间的积极关系进一步证明了 PRISMA 对提高口腔医学 SR/MAs 透明报告的影响。
