Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals

European Journal of Oral Sciences

Volumn 121, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 57-62

  Seehra, Jadbinder ^a   Fleming, Padhraig S ^b   Polychronopoulou, Argy ^c   Pandis, Nikolaos ^d  

^a GUY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Abstracts; Completeness; Reporting; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874443905     PISSN: 09098836     EISSN: 16000722     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/eos.12027     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e78.
2. Richards D. Critically appraising systematic reviews. Evid Based Dent 2010; 11: 27-29.
3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535.
4. Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: A systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 163.
5. Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N. A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 158-163.
6. Koletsi D, Karagianni A, Pandis N, Makou M, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Are studies reporting significant results more likely to be published? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 632. e1-5.
7. Williamson PR, Gamble C. Application and investigation of a bound for outcome reporting bias. Trials 2007; 8: 9.
8. Pitkin RM. The importance of the abstract. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 267.
9. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 267-269.
10. Lai NM, Teng CL, Lee ML. Interpreting systematic reviews: are we ready to make our own conclusions? A cross-sectional study. BMC Med 2011; 9: 30.
11. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, Schulz KF; CONSORT Group. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e20.
12. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Hopewell S, Altman DG. Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews. JAMA 2011; 306: 1981-1982.
13. Chen Y, Li J, Ai C, Duan Y, Wang L, Zhang M, Hopewell S. Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals. PLoS One 2010; 5: e11926.
14. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]. Available at: www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/handbook.pdf. Accessed October 3rd 2012.
15. Glenny AM, Esposito M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci 2003; 111: 85-92.
16. Bader J, Ismail A; ADA Council on Scientific Affairs, ADA Division of Science. Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry. JADA 2004; 135: 464-473.
17. Major MP, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. An evaluation of search and selection methods used in dental systematic reviews published in English. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137: 1252-1257.
18. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 7.
19. Chang SM, Slutsky J. Debunking myths of protocol registration. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 4.
20. Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N. Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm? Eur J Orthod 2012; Apr 24 [Epub ahead of print].
21. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 1993; 269: 2282-2286.
22. Sharma S, Harrison JE. Structured abstracts: do they improve the quality of information in abstracts? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 523-530.
23. Mulrow CD, Thacker SB, Pugh JA. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108: 613-615.
24. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Inv 2009; 40: 35-53.
25. Hartley J. Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews. Bull Med Libr Assoc 2000; 88: 332-337.
26. Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, Watanabe M, Suzumura EA, Duncan BB, Devereaux PJ, Cook D. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 387-392.
27. Sjögren P, Halling A. Quality of reporting randomised clinical trials in dental and medical research. Br Dent J 2002; 192: 100-103.
28. Willinsky J. The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship. http://www.arizona.openrepository.com. Accessed 10th December, 2012.