Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?

Progress in Orthodontics

Research

Despina Koletsi¹  Filippos Mikelis² 

[1] Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland;Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA;School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece;

关键词: Scoping Reviews;    Knowledge synthesis;    Orthodontics;    PRISMA ScR;    Evidence synthesis;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s40510-022-00442-3

 received in 2022-09-10, accepted in 2022-10-18,  发布年份 2022

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundScoping Reviews (ScRs) have emerged in the orthodontic literature as a new methodological perspective to collate and summarize scientific evidence. The aim of the present study was to identify and record the proportion of Scoping Reviews in orthodontics that have been clearly and adequately justified, based on the methodological framework of such types of reviews. Associations with a number of publication characteristics were also sought. Three major databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, as well as 11 specialty orthodontic journals were electronically sought from inception until August 1, 2022, for ScRs. The primary outcome pertained to whether the published reports of the ScRs included an appropriate justification and explanation for the selection of this kind of knowledge synthesis methodology. Potential association with year, journal, continent of authorship, number of authors, methodologist involvement, appropriate reporting guidelines and registration practices followed were explored.ResultsA total of 40 ScRs were eligible for inclusion, with the majority not being adequately justified (22/40; 55.0%). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onward (32/40; 80.0%). The regression model did not reveal any significant association between justification of ScRs and a number of publication characteristics (p > 0.05 at all levels).ConclusionsLess than half of the included ScRs were adequately justified in terms of selection of the appropriate synthesis methodology. Awareness should be raised in the scientific community regarding the correctness of the use of this newly emerging type of study in orthodontics, to safeguard against any trace of research waste.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2022

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1