Reporting quality of scoping reviews in endodontics: A meta‐research study

Tzanetakis, Giorgos N., Petridis, Xenos, Jakovljevic, Aleksandar, Koletsi, Despina, Nagendrababu, Venkateshbabu, Duncan, Henry F. and Dummer, Paul M. H. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0726-7467 2024. Reporting quality of scoping reviews in endodontics: A meta‐research study. International Endodontic Journal 10.1111/iej.14141

PDF - Published Version Download (1MB)

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the reporting quality of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in endodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) and to analyse their association with a range of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics. Methods: Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 31 January 2024 to identify scoping reviews in the field of endodontics. An additional search was performed in three leading endodontic journals. Study selection and appraising the quality of the studies was carried out independently by two reviewers. Each of the 20 PRISMA‐ScR items were allocated a score of either 0, 0.5 or 1 to reflect the completeness of the reporting. An item‐specific and overall percentage reporting quality score was calculated and reported through descriptive statistics across a range of publication, as well as methodological/reporting characteristics. A univariable and multivariable quantile regression was performed to identify the effect of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics (year of publication, journal, inclusion of an appropriate reporting guideline, and study registration) on the overall percentage reporting quality score. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was then investigated. Results: A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included for appraisal. Most of the studies were published from 2021 onwards. The overall median reporting quality score was 86%. The most frequent items not included in the studies were: a priori protocol registration (22/40 compliant; 55%), and reporting of funding (16/40 compliant; 40%). Other key elements that were inadequately reported were the abstract (7/40 compliant; 18%), the rationale and justification of the ScR (21/40 compliant; 52%) and the objectives of the study (18/40 compliant; 45%). Studies that adhered to appropriate reporting guidelines were associated with greater reporting quality scores (β‐coefficient: 10; 95%CI: 1.1, 18.9; p = .03). ScRs with protocols registered a priori had significantly greater reporting quality scores (β‐coefficient: 12.5; 95%CI: 6.1, 18.9; p < .001), compared with non‐registered reviews. Conclusions: The reporting quality of the ScRs in endodontics varied and was greater when the ScR protocols were registered a priori and when the authors adhered to reporting guidelines.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Published Online
Status:	In Press
Schools:	Dentistry
Additional Information:	License information from Publisher: LICENSE 1: URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/, Start Date: 2024-09-10
Publisher:	Wiley
ISSN:	0143-2885
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	24 October 2024
Date of Acceptance:	22 August 2024
Last Modified:	24 Oct 2024 11:15
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/173303

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item