Current status of the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews related to implant dentistry: a literature survey

Published:October 08, 2022DOI:


      The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of abstracts in systematic reviews (SRs) related to implant dentistry and to assess the possible factors associated with the reporting quality. Abstracts of SRs in the field of implant dentistry, published in the last 5 years, were searched. The reporting quality was assessed and scored using the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist (PRISMA-A). The overall PRISMA-A score (OPS) and relative score (OPS%) per review were calculated according to adherence to the criteria presented in the checklist. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify possible factors associated with reporting quality. Overall, 310 SRs were eligible for this study. Based on the maximum PRISMA-A score (score of 12), the mean OPS was 6.5 and OPS% was 54.2%. The items ‘title’, ‘objectives’, and ‘number of included studies’ were those most frequently reported in the abstracts, while the items ‘registration’ and ‘funding’ were the least reported. According to multivariable linear regression, the geographical origin of the articles was the only factor associated with better quality of abstract reporting, with higher OPS for SRs from Europe when compared to North America (coefficient 0.73; P = 0.049). The reporting quality of abstracts in SRs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal and needs to be improved. Journals should encourage adherence to reporting checklists in SRs.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Murad M.H.
        • Asi N.
        • Alsawas M.
        • Alahdab F.
        New evidence pyramid.
        Evid Based Med. 2016; 21: 125-127
        • Bero L.A.
        • Jadad A.R.
        How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making.
        Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127: 37-42
        • Egger M.
        • Smith G.D.
        • Phillips A.N.
        Meta-analysis: principles and procedures.
        BMJ. 1997; 315: 1533-1537
        • Patsopoulos N.A.
        • Analatos A.A.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences.
        JAMA. 2005; 293: 2362-2366
        • Niforatos J.D.
        • Weaver M.
        • Johansen M.E.
        Assessment of publication trends of systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials, 1995 to 2017.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179: 1593-1594
        • Møller M.H.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        • Darmon M.
        Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure.
        Intensive Care Med. 2018; 44: 518-520
        • Chalmers I.
        • Glasziou P.
        Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence.
        Lancet. 2009; 374: 86-89
        • Page M.J.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • Boutron I.
        • Hoffmann T.C.
        • Mulrow C.D.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Tetzlaff J.M.
        • Akl E.A.
        • Brennan S.E.
        • Chou R.
        • Glanville J.
        • Grimshaw J.M.
        • Hróbjartsson A.
        • Lalu M.M.
        • Li T.
        • Loder E.W.
        • Mayo-Wilson E.
        • McDonald S.
        • McGuinness L.A.
        • Stewart L.A.
        • Thomas J.
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Welch V.A.
        • Whiting P.
        • Moher D.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2021; 372n71
        • Beller E.M.
        • Glasziou P.P.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Hopewell S.
        • Bastian H.
        • Chalmers I.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Lasserson T.
        • Tovey D.
        • PRISMA for Abstracts Group
        PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts.
        PLoS Med. 2013; 10e1001419
        • Menne M.C.
        • Pandis N.
        • Faggion Jr., C.M.
        Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry.
        J Periodontol. 2021; (Epub ahead of print)
        • Xie L.
        • Qin W.
        • Gu Y.
        • Pathak J.L.
        • Zeng S.
        • Du M.
        Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years.
        Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020; 25: e626-e633
        • Wang M.
        • Jin Y.
        • Hu Z.J.
        • Thabane A.
        • Dennis B.
        • Gajic-Veljanoski O.
        • Paul J.
        • Thabane L.
        The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: a systematic survey of the literature.
        Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017; 8: 1-10
        • Page M.J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Shamseer L.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Ahmadzai N.
        • Wolfe D.
        • Yazdi F.
        • Catalá-López F.
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Moher D.
        Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 94: 8-18
        • Page M.J.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • Boutron I.
        • Hoffmann T.
        • Mulrow C.D.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Moher D.
        Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 118: 60-68
        • Muka T.
        • Glisic M.
        • Milic J.
        • Verhoog S.
        • Bohlius J.
        • Bramer W.
        • Chowdhury R.
        • Franco O.H.
        A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research.
        Eur J Epidemiol. 2020; 35: 49-60
        • Bigna J.J.
        • Um L.N.
        • Nansseu J.R.
        A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Syst Rev. 2016; 5174
        • Pulikkotil S.J.
        • Jayaraman J.
        • Nagendrababu V.
        Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals.
        Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019; 20: 383-391
        • Haynes R.B.
        • Mulrow C.D.
        • Huth E.J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Gardner M.J.
        More informative abstracts revisited.
        Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996; 33: 1-9
        • Li T.
        • Hua F.
        • Dan S.
        • Zhong Y.
        • Levey C.
        • Song Y.
        Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: an assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines.
        J Dent. 2020; 102103471
        • Vásquez-Cárdenas J.
        • Zapata-Noreña Ó.
        • Carvajal-Flórez Á.
        • Barbosa-Liz D.M.
        • Giannakopoulos N.N.
        • Faggion Jr., C.M.
        Systematic reviews in orthodontics: impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019; 156: 442-452.e412
        • Page M.J.
        • Moher D.
        Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.
        Syst Rev. 2017; 6263
        • Jørgensen A.W.
        • Hilden J.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.
        BMJ. 2006; 333782