skip to main content
Idioma:
Primo Search
Clear Search Box
Search in: Busca Geral
Busca Avançada
Busca por Índices

Spin and reporting in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in restorative dentistry

Sensever, Felipe de Araújo ; de Lucena Alves, Charles Phillipe ; Lima, Giana da S. ; Loomans, Bas ; Opdam, Niek ; Pereira-Cenci, Tatiana

Journal of dentistry, 2022-10, Vol.125, p.104282-104282, Article 104282 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Oxford: Elsevier Ltd

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Spin and reporting in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in restorative dentistry
  • Autor: Sensever, Felipe de Araújo ; de Lucena Alves, Charles Phillipe ; Lima, Giana da S. ; Loomans, Bas ; Opdam, Niek ; Pereira-Cenci, Tatiana
  • Assuntos: Bias ; Clinical trials ; Completeness ; Dentistry ; Dentistry and bias ; Failure rates ; Literature reviews ; Meta-analysis ; Meta-research ; Misleading interpretation ; Misleading reporting ; Registration ; Review ; Reviews ; Systematic review ; Texts
  • É parte de: Journal of dentistry, 2022-10, Vol.125, p.104282-104282, Article 104282
  • Notas: ObjectType-Article-1
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
    content type line 23
  • Descrição: To estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews with metanalysis (SRMAs) in restorative dentistry. Inclusion criteria were SRMAs of randomized clinical trials of restorative dentistry on survival, success, or failure rates of treatment in humans, with no language or year restriction. SRMAs performed with non-RCTs were excluded. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from inception to April 2022. Outcomes were the prevalence of spin (primary outcome) and completeness of reporting (secondary outcome) in the abstract and full text. Data were reported through means and standard deviations or absolute and relative frequencies. Spin in each item was considered low when occurring in less than 25% of the papers, moderate (25 to 75%), or high (more than 75%). We identified 7029 studies and 49 unique manuscripts were included. There was a moderate presence of spin in the abstracts and low in full texts. In the abstracts, 65.9% did not report adverse events; while in the abstract and full text, more than 16% reported a conclusion containing recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings. Regarding completeness of reporting, there was poor reporting for most items in the abstract while there was an adequate report in full texts, except for register name and registration number (not reported in 32.7%). Abstract of SRMAs in restorative dentistry should be better reported. Spin and poor reporting were more frequent in the abstracts, which misleads readers and could lead to inadequate clinical recommendations. Spin and incomplete reporting are a threat to evidence-based practice, especially in systematic reviews. Therefore, care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders should be aware of the possibility of spin in systematic reviews and other sources to prevent misinterpretation, which could lead to inadequate decisions and treatments.
  • Editor: Oxford: Elsevier Ltd
  • Idioma: Inglês
Voltar para lista de resultados

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.