Assessment of Reporting Quality in Orthodontic Systematic Reviews: An Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of orthodontic systematic reviews published between 2018 and 2022.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted, analyzing 2114 articles from selected orthodontic journals. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the included systematic reviews. Compliance scores were calculated for each review, and the overall compliance score was determined.

RESULTS

The European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) contributed the most systematic reviews (49%), followed by the Journal of Orthodontics (JO, 8%). Europe had the highest first-author proportion (42%), while Asia accounted for 26%. The majority of reviews involved 4-6 authors (59%). The overall compliance score was 79.2% (95% CI: 78.1-80.3). EJO had the highest compliance (79.9%, 95% CI: 78.3-81.5), followed by Angle Orthodontist (78.9%, 95% CI: 76.8-81.1). Compliance scores varied across regions, with Europe scoring the highest (79.7%, 95% CI: 77.9-81.6). Reporting key Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist items, such as meta-analysis methods and reporting bias assessment, was inadequate.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of orthodontic systematic reviews varied, highlighting the need for improvement in areas such as reporting meta-analysis methods and addressing reporting bias. Adherence to the PRISMA guidelines should be emphasized to enhance transparency and strengthen the credibility of orthodontic systematic reviews, supporting evidence-based decision-making in orthodontic practice.