Reporting quality of prosthodontic related systematic reviews in supplements of SCI expanded journals

Baghırova N., Akça K., Kara Ş. A., Çakır B.

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, vol.33, pp.73-209, 2022 (SCI-Expanded)

  • Publication Type: Article / Abstract
  • Volume: 33
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1111/clr.14001
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Biotechnology Research Abstracts, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Page Numbers: pp.73-209
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes


Background: In the last decade, special issues focusing on a particular topic become a common approach to update the clinicians with evidence-based information. Therefore, the primary purpose of special issues is to examine studies on the subject, compare different results, to determine new targets and directions for scientific research. However, the quality and reliability of the articles published in special issues remain debatable since they are mostly a part of a certain set-up.

Aim / Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis on prosthetic dentistry published in special issues of SCI-expanded journals in dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine using the PRISMA checklist.

Material and Methods: The journals listed in Web of Science by Clarivate related to dentistry, oral surgery and medicine that presented prosthodontics as a keyword in the aims and scopes were selected independently by two researchers (KA, NB). In case of discrepancy, a discussion was initiated. Then, the journals that published special / supplement issues between 2009-2019 were listed. The articles in each special issue were screened for appearance of SR with MAs wording either in the title or abstract. Later, two researchers (NB, SAK) evaluated and scored all recognized sections of the included SRs with MAs studies separately following the PRISMA 2009 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews was employed to evaluate reporting quality. The guideline comprised of 27 items whereby each subcriteria was capable of attaining a maximum overall score 55. The distribution of scores obtained for individual sections and the MA was presented as mean (with st. dev.), median, min. and max. value.

Results: A total of forty SDs with MAs were examined for their completeness and appropriateness to reporting criteria, as listed in PRISMA. The majority of these (57.5%) were published in COIR, followed in decreasing order by JOMI(17.5%), Eur. J. Oral Implantol.(12.5%), J.Clin.Periodontol.(10%) and Clin.Implant Dent.Relat.Res.(2.5%). The distribution of total scores obtained for reporting quality was right-skewed, ranging between 34.0 and 50.5 points, with a mean (st. dev.) 42.4 ± 4.7, median of 42.7. It was hard to scrutinize the objectives section and PICOS component in reading several MAs. The inconsistencies in scoring were clarified and finalized in meetings with researchers and the senior epidemiologist. The reporting quality of articles was the lowest for abstracts, followed in descending order by methods, results, funding, and introduction sections: such that, 60%, 55%, 47.5%, 47.5%, and 45% of the MAs examined obtained lower than the overall mean scores for these sections, respectively.

Conclusion and Clinical implications: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses published in special issues have no uniform reporting standard. Therefore, to achieve optimal quality, researchers and editors should consider following the guidance of the PRISMA statement. Additionally, the information given in the abstract part of the article should be more detailed, to enhance the clarification provided to the reader.

Disclosure of Interest: None declared

Keywords: Systematic Review