Reporting Quality of Scoping Reviews in Dental Public Health

Overview

Journal BMC Med Res Methodol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Medicine
Health Services

Date 2023 Feb 28

PMID 36849932

Authors

Lara Dotto

Mateus Bertolini Fernandes Dos Santos

Rafael Sarkis-Onofre

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The study aimed to explore reporting characteristics of scoping reviews in dental public health and the impact of some factors on the reporting quality.

Methods: This study searched for dental public health scoping reviews in PubMed and Scopus without year restrictions and restricted to English-language publications. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. One reviewer, after training, extracted data from included studies considering general study characteristics and reporting characteristics. The impact of PRISMA-ScR publication, journal endorsement, and use of study protocol on the reporting was explored.

Results: Eighty-one scoping reviews were included. Five items presented rates of appropriate reporting higher than 80% considering the overall percentage. Related to the impact of PRISMA-ScR publication, six items were found more often in scoping reviews published after the publication of PRISMA-ScR than in scoping reviews published before the publication of PRISMA-ScR. With regards to journals endorsement, only two reporting characteristics were found more often in scoping reviews published in journals that endorse the PRISMA-ScR statement than in scoping reviews published in non-endorsers journals. Last, regarding the use of the pre-specified protocol, five reporting characteristics presented differences in studies reporting the use of pre-specified protocol than in studies that did not mention the use of a protocol. All differences were statistically significant.

Conclusions: Important information is missing in the included scoping reviews demonstrating crucial reporting problems.

Citing Articles

The reporting quality of meta-epidemiological studies needs substantial improvement: a research on research study.

Long Y, Zheng Y, Wang X, Guo Q, Zhang N, Deng Y Syst Rev. 2024; 13(1):244.

PMID: 39342302 PMC: 11438193. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02661-7.

References

Pham M, Rajic A, Greig J, Sargeant J, Papadopoulos A, McEwen S . A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 5(4):371-85. PMC: 4491356. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1123. View

Dotto L, de Azevedo Kinalski M, Soares Machado P, Pereira G, Sarkis-Onofre R, Santos M . The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID-19: An analysis of PROSPERO records. J Evid Based Med. 2021; 14(1):56-64. PMC: 8013525. DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12426. View

Santos M, Agostini B, Bassani R, Pereira G, Sarkis-Onofre R . Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20(1):57. PMC: 7065343. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-00939-7. View

France K, Sollecito T . How Evidence-Based Dentistry Has Shaped the Practice of Oral Medicine. Dent Clin North Am. 2018; 63(1):83-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2018.08.006. View

Veroniki A, Tsokani S, Zevgiti S, Pagkalidou I, Kontouli K, Ambarcioglu P . Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):246. PMC: 8434710. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01780-9. View

Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, OBrien K, Colquhoun H, Levac D . PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7):467-473. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850. View

Brownson R, Fielding J, Maylahn C . Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009; 30:175-201. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100134. View

Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, OBrien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M . A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16:15. PMC: 4746911. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4. View

Pereira V, Silva S, Carvalho V, Zanghelini F, Barreto J . Strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in public health: an overview of systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022; 20(1):13. PMC: 8785489. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00815-4. View

10.

Colquhoun H, Levac D, OBrien K, Straus S, Tricco A, Perrier L . Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(12):1291-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013. View

11.

Munn Z, Peters M, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E . Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):143. PMC: 6245623. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. View

12.

Li S, Cao M, Zhu X . Evidence-based practice: Knowledge, attitudes, implementation, facilitators, and barriers among community nurses-systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98(39):e17209. PMC: 6775415. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017209. View

13.

Zauza D, Dotto L, Moher D, Tricco A, Agostini B, Sarkis-Onofre R . There is room for improvement in the use of scoping reviews in dentistry. J Dent. 2022; 122:104161. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104161. View