22. Assessment of Systematic Reviews Abstract Reporting Quality in Periodontology Journals
Abdullah Almutairi1 and Fahad Alharbi2
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study assessed the completeness of abstract reporting in periodontology systematic reviews based on PRISMA guidelines.
Place and Duration of Study: A manual search was conducted in three top periodontology journals (Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research, and Journal of Clinical Periodontology) for systematic reviews published from January 2018 to July 2022.
Methods: Eligible articles were independently screened by two authors. The PRISMA statement checklist was used to evaluate abstract quality. Descriptive statistics, linear regression, univariate analysis, and reliability assessments were performed using SPSS 29.00 software.
Results: We evaluated 1506 abstracts and included 87 systematic reviews with meta-analyses. The Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP) published the highest number of reviews (66%). The mean abstract reporting score was 54.8, with the highest scores found in studies from South America (60.8) and the Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR) (mean score: 60). Most journals adequately reported objectives, eligibility criteria, included studies, and result synthesis, but lacked information on sources, bias, synthesis methods, evidence limitations, interpretation, funding, and registration. Univariate analysis showed statistically significant differences between journals (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: This study highlights areas for improving abstract reporting in periodontology systematic reviews. Adhering strictly to PRISMA guidelines is recommended to enhance reliability and transparency in periodontology systematic reviews.
Key Words: Systematic Reviews; Periodontology; PRISMA guidelines; Reporting Quality
Citation of article: Almutairi A, Alharbi F. Assessment of Systematic Reviews Abstract Reporting Quality in Periodontology Journals. Med Forum 2024;35(3):97-103. doi:10.60110/medforum.350322.