Knowledge, Attitude, Perception and Barriers in Conducting a Systematic Review Among Postgraduate Dental Students Across Multiple Indian Dental Institutions—A Questionnaire Based Study

INTRODUCTION: Systematic review and meta-analysis represent the highest level of evidence guiding clinical decision-making and are essential in postgraduate dental training. However, lacunae in knowledge, along with barriers, compromise their quality and conduct. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, perception and barriers related to conducting a systematic review among postgraduate dental students across Indian dental institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted among 377 postgraduate dental students from December 2025 to March 2026. Data were collected via a validated online questionnaire assessing demographics, knowledge (19 items), attitude and perception (5 items) and barriers (5 items). Responses were analysed across different training years. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Most participants were in the age range of 26-30 years (70.6%) and of female gender (64.2%). The highest proportions of correct responses were observed for questions related to evidence hierarchy (92.8%), inclusion criteria (86.0%), PROSPERO registration (80.6%), the purpose of systematic reviews (78.0%) and the PICO framework (74.3%). However, gaps were noted in minimum study requirements (28.9%), understanding scoping reviews (27.9%) and quality assessment tools (27.1%). Knowledge scores differed significantly across training years (p = 0.001), with third year students performing better than first and second years. Attitudes were largely positive (> 90%), while lack of time (95.2%) and limited critical appraisal skills were major barriers. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Postgraduate dental students demonstrated positive attitudes toward systematic reviews, although areas requiring improvement were identified in specific methodological domains. Identifying these educational needs may guide structured training, mentorship and curriculum development to strengthen evidence-based research and clinical decision-making.