Article type
Year
Abstract
Objectives: the aims of this study were to assess whether the previous registration of a systematic review (SR) is associated with the improvement of the quality of the report of the SR and whether registration reduced outcome reporting bias.
Methods: we performed a search in PubMed for SRs in dentistry indexed in 2017. One of three review authors extracted data related to SR registration and reporting characteristics. We analyzed if the reporting of 21 characteristics of included SRs was associated with the prospective registration of protocols or reporting of a previously established protocol. We calculated the proportion of SRs with adequate reporting of these items through the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each characteristic. We tested the association between prospective registration of the protocol, reporting of funding and number of included studies versus outcome reporting bias via multivariable logistic regression.
Results: we included 495 SRs. One hundred and sixty-two (32.7%) SRs reported registering the SR protocol or working from a protocol. Thirteen reporting characteristics were described statistically significantly in SRs registered versus SRs that were not. Registration was not significantly associated with reporting statistical significance (odds ratio (OR) 0.96 confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.49 to 1.90).
Conclusions: there is a positive influence of registering protocols in terms of report quality of SRs in dentistry. However, we did not observe an association between protocol registration and reduction in outcome reporting bias.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: the poor reporting of SRs could have serious consequences for healthcare decision-making and wasting of time and resources. Problems with incomplete reporting could be a barrier to clinicians based on their decisions with respect to scientific reports and incorporating evidence-based medicine into practice. There is a positive influence of registering protocols in report quality of SRs and better reporting could lead to better decision-making for clinicians.
Methods: we performed a search in PubMed for SRs in dentistry indexed in 2017. One of three review authors extracted data related to SR registration and reporting characteristics. We analyzed if the reporting of 21 characteristics of included SRs was associated with the prospective registration of protocols or reporting of a previously established protocol. We calculated the proportion of SRs with adequate reporting of these items through the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each characteristic. We tested the association between prospective registration of the protocol, reporting of funding and number of included studies versus outcome reporting bias via multivariable logistic regression.
Results: we included 495 SRs. One hundred and sixty-two (32.7%) SRs reported registering the SR protocol or working from a protocol. Thirteen reporting characteristics were described statistically significantly in SRs registered versus SRs that were not. Registration was not significantly associated with reporting statistical significance (odds ratio (OR) 0.96 confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.49 to 1.90).
Conclusions: there is a positive influence of registering protocols in terms of report quality of SRs in dentistry. However, we did not observe an association between protocol registration and reduction in outcome reporting bias.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: the poor reporting of SRs could have serious consequences for healthcare decision-making and wasting of time and resources. Problems with incomplete reporting could be a barrier to clinicians based on their decisions with respect to scientific reports and incorporating evidence-based medicine into practice. There is a positive influence of registering protocols in report quality of SRs and better reporting could lead to better decision-making for clinicians.