Reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v21i00.8666351

Keywords:

Dental research, Research report, Systematic reviews of topic

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to assess the reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO) meeting. Methods: We selected abstracts published in the SBPqO meeting proceedings of 2019 and 2020, mentioning that a systematic review was conducted in the title, objective or methods sections. One researcher performed the screening and the data extraction after a pilot test training. The following data were extracted: affiliation of the primary author, dental specialization, the term “systematic review” mentioned in the title, reporting of the objective, reporting of eligibility criteria, reporting of information sources, reporting of the number of included studies and if a meta-analysis was performed. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed with data summarized as frequencies. Results: We included 235 abstracts. A total of 20 studies were from the Universidade de Uberlândia (8.5%), and the main specialization was Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, with 47 studies (20%). Most of the studies mentioned the term “systematic review” in the title (n=219; 93.2%) and reported the objective (n=231; 98.3%). A great majority of studies did not report the eligibility criteria (n=97; 41.3%) or it was classified as unclear (n=96; 40.8%). The great majority of studies only reported the databases searched (n=103; 43.8%) or databases and date of search (n=74; 31.5%). Most of the studies reported the number of included studies (n=204; 86.8%). Conclusion: Based on this study, the reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting are satisfactory. However, there is room for improvement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

William Vinícius de Oliveira Santos, Meridional Faculty

Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, Passo Fundo, Brazil.

Lara Dotto, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul

Graduate Program in Dentistry, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul – PUCRS, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, Meridional Faculty

Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, Passo Fundo, Brazil.

References

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann. Intern. Med. 1997;126(5):376-80. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006.

Murad MH, Montori VM. Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence. 2013; 309(21):2217-8.

doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.5616.

Bassani R, Pereira GKR, Page MJ, Tricco AC, Moher D, Sarkis-Onofre R. Systematic reviews in dentistry: current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics. J Dent. 2019;82:71-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.01.014.

Saltaji H, Cummings GG, Armijo-Olivo S, Major MP, Amin M, Major PW, et al. A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study. PLoS One. 2013 Sep;8(9):e74545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074545.

T O Lemes L, Dotto L, Agostini BA, Pereira GKR, Sarkis-Onofre R. How are meta-analyses being conducted and reported in dentistry?: a meta-research study. Braz J Oral Sci. 2021;20:e211701. doi: 10.20396/bjos.v20i00.8661701.

Hopewell S, Clarke M, Askie L. Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;59(7):681-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.09.016.

Duan Y, Li J, Ai C, Chen Y, Chen P, Zhang M, et al. Quality of trials reported as conference abstracts in China: how well are they reported? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Oct;25(4):479-84. doi: 10.1017/S0266462309990365.

Turpen RM, Fesperman SF, Smith WA, Vieweg J, Dahm P. Reporting quality and information consistency of randomized, controlled trials presented as abstracts at the American Urological Association annual meetings. J Urol. 2010 Jul;184(1):249-53. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.045.

Yoon U, Knobloch K. Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Apr;12:47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-47.

Yoon U, Knobloch K. Quality of reporting in sports injury prevention abstracts according to the CONSORT and STROBE criteria: an analysis of the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention in 2005 and 2008. Br J Sports Med. 2012 Mar;46(3):202-6. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.053876.

Speich B, Mc Cord KA, Agarwal A, Gloy V, Gryaznov D, Moffa G, et al. Reporting Quality of Journal Abstracts for Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials Before and After the Implementation of the CONSORT Extension for Abstracts. World J Surg. 2019 Jun;43(10):2371-8. doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-05064-1.

Narayan VM, Cone EB, Smith D, Scales CD Jr, Dahm P. Improved reporting of randomized controlled trials in the urologic literature. Eur Urol. 2016 Dec;70(6):1044-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.042.

Kumar S, Mohammad H, Vora H, Kar K. Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of periodontal diseases in journal abstracts-a cross-sectional survey and bibliometric analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018 Jun;18(2):130-141.e22. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.08.005.

Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica. Proceedings of the 36th SBPqO Annual Meeting. Braz Oral Res. 2019;33(suppl 2).

Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica. Proceedings of the 37th SBPqO Virtual Annual Meeting. Braz Oral Res. 2020;34(suppl 2).

Johnson HL, Fontelo P, Olsen CH, Jones KD 2nd, Gimbel RW. Family nurse practitioner student perception of journal abstract usefulness in clinical decision making: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2013 Nov;25(11):597-603. doi: 10.1111/1745-7599.12013.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.

Dotto L, T O Lemes L, O Spazzin A, Sousa YTCS, Pereira GKR, Bacchi A, et al. Acceptance of systematic reviews as Master/PhD theses in Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry. J Evid Based Med. 2020 May;13(2):125-9. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12382.

Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica. Instruções para envio de Resumos. SBPqO; 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 5]. Available from: https://www.sbpqo.org.br/hotsite2020/conteudo.asp?id=7.

International Association for Dental Research. Call for Abstracts. [cited 2021 Mar 5]. Available from: https://www.iadr.org/Portals/69/docs/Meetings/IAGS/2021/2021IA_CallforAbstracts.pdf.

Downloads

Published

2022-01-03

How to Cite

1.
Santos WV de O, Dotto L, Sarkis-Onofre R. Reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting . Braz. J. Oral Sci. [Internet]. 2022 Jan. 3 [cited 2022 May 25];21(00):e226351. Available from: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8666351

Issue

Section

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Most read articles by the same author(s)