Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the reporting and conduct characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors and compare reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs with the rest of the world. METHODS: A search in PubMed was performed to identify SRs published in dentistry in 2017 assessing different aspects of oral heath irrespective of the design of included studies. From this dataset, a subgroup analysis was performed considering only SRs published by Brazilian corresponding authors. Study screening was performed by two researchers independently, while for data extraction, one of three reviewers extracted details related to reporting and conduct of SRs. The completeness of reporting of 24 characteristics, included in the PRISMA Statement of the SRs classified as treatment/therapeutic, was evaluated comparing Brazilian SR to SRs from all other countries. RESULTS: We included 117 SRs with Brazilian corresponding authors. The majority focused on dental treatments (39.3%), with oral surgery (n=19, 16.2%) as the most commonly published. Included SRs presented varying reporting/conduct characteristics. Items such as use of reporting guidelines and screening method used were well reported. However, most SRs did not assess the risk of publication bias and did not use the GRADE assessment. Four (of 24) reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs compared to SRs from the rest of world were reported statistically significantly more frequently: mention of a SR protocol, trial registry searched, screening method reported, and assessment of risk of bias/quality of studies. CONCLUSION: Reporting and conduct characteristics of Brazilian SRs are highly variable.
Highlights
Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for collating and summarizing available knowledge, facilitating the use of evidence-based treatments, and identifying research gaps[1, 2]
This study sought to characterize the reporting and conduct characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) published in dentistry by Brazilian authors and compare reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs to those published by authors originating in all other countries in the world
We performed a subgroup analysis considering only SRs published by Brazilian corresponding authors and compared these with SRs published by corresponding authors of all other countries
Summary
Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for collating and summarizing available knowledge, facilitating the use of evidence-based treatments, and identifying research gaps[1, 2]. Studies demonstrated an increasing number of SRs published in different medical areas[3,4], including dentistry[5,6]. These studies corroborate that most SRs are poorly conducted, reported and/or unnecessary. Saltaji et al demonstrated that between 1991 and 2012, Brazil was the 7th most common country from which SRs in dentistry originated from[6], whereas recently Bassani et al showed that Brazil became the number one country for SRs indexed in 2017 in PubMed[5]. This study sought to characterize the reporting and conduct characteristics of SRs published in dentistry by Brazilian authors and compare reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs to those published by authors originating in all other countries in the world
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
