Effect of PRISMA 2009 on reporting quality in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in high-impact dental medicine journals between 1993–2018
Open Access
- 14 December 2023
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 18 (12) , e0295864
Abstract
Introduction: The PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals. Methods: This study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993–2009 (n = 211) and 2012–2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics. Results: The number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting. Conclusion: Following the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.Keywords
This publication has 64 references indexed in Scilit:
- The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trialsBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2013
- Epidemiology, Quality, and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture Interventions Published in Chinese JournalsThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2012
- Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research JournalsPLOS ONE, 2012
- Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trialBMJ, 2011
- Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese JournalsPLOS ONE, 2011
- The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and ElaborationPLOS Medicine, 2009
- Need for Quality Improvement in Renal Systematic ReviewsClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 2008
- Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A concern for standards;JAMA, 1995
- Bias in meta-analytic researchJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992
- Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1987