Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background Data from the systematic review, with or without meta-analysis, form the basis of evidence-based medicine. Therefore, these studies should be conducted and reported according to the mandatory Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This study evaluated compliance with the PRISMA guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews in three major periodontology journals. Material and Methods A hand search was conducted in three major periodontal journals to identify Systematic Reviews (SRs) published between January 2018 and July 2022 using the words “Systematic Review” or “meta-analysis” in the title, abstract, or methodology of an article. The PRISMA statement checklist was used to evaluate eligible SRs, covering various sections of the review process. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariate analyses, and inter-examiner and intra-examiner reliability assessments were conducted for data analysis. Results A total of 87 SRs with meta-analyses were included in the current study. The proportion of published systematic reviews during the investigation period was 5.7% of the total published articles. 16 items were reported adequately in less than 75% of the included papers. Notably, items such as abstracts, data items, sensitivity analysis methods, synthesis results, reporting biases, evidence certainty, registration and protocol, data, code, and other materials availability were reported inadequately in some reviews. Conclusion The findings from this study support previous research demonstrating that compliance with the PRISMA guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews can vary, potentially attributing to a lack of understanding regarding these guidelines and their clinical significance.
Alharbi et al. (Thu,) studied this question.