Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: An assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines.

Abstract Objectives To assess and compare the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in operative dentistry published before and after the release of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts (PRISMA-A), and to identify factors associated with reporting quality. Methods PubMed was searched for abstracts published during 2010–2012 (Pre-PRISMA period) and 2017–2019 (Post-PRISMA period). Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 13-item PRSIMA-A checklist. Risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the adequate reporting rate of each item between the two periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality. Results A total of 160 abstracts were included and assessed. Only four items (‘objective’, ‘results of main outcomes’, ‘description of the effect’ and ‘interpretation’) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75 %). According to the multivariable analysis, greater word count (P = 0.001), being published in the Post-PRISMA period (P = 0.025) and geographic origin from Asia (P = 0.025) or South America (P = 0.015) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality. Conclusions/clinical significance The reporting quality of SR abstracts in operative dentistry had improved significantly after the publication of PRISMA-A, but was still suboptimal. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors in operative dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-A checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of SR abstracts.