Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?

Abstract

Background Scoping 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. Results A 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). Conclusions Less 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.

Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study

“…The overall findings of the present empirical study give a representative picture of the reporting quality of the published ScRs in Orthodontics to date. Following prior research on justification of ScRs ( 9 , 10 ), the present study confirmed a suboptimal level of presentation and reporting for these types of Reviews. Variability across reporting quality items was detected, with some key aspects reported even in less than half of the examined articles.…”

“…This is commonly not applicable or not implemented in a scoping review, thus ScRs might be considered by authors easier and faster to undertake and publish, with minimal advising and consultation with expert methodologists in the field; following this, one might speculate that ScRs do not guarantee identification and mapping of solid evidence to fill in the knowledge gaps and promote research and decision making perspectives. If this is additionally considered in conjunction with the identified lack of justification in most of the ScRs examined in this study, as also confirmed by previous studies ( 9 , 10 ), their contribution in the evidence base is yet to be recognized and confirmed.…”

“…A recently published report related to oral health ScRs reveals that the latter are not adequately justified, methodologically sound, and/or have registered protocols ( 9 ). These early findings from oral health research were confirmed by a subsequent follow-up about rationale justification practices of Orthodontic ScRs ( 10 ). However, the level of reporting, registration, and reproducibility strategies framed under the existing reporting guidelines for ScRs have not been studied in the orthodontic literature.…”

“…Overall, the present study constitutes the first attempt to critically appraise and map the quality of reporting and contextual information derived from ScRs in the field. It builds upon a previously conducted report on the justification and rationale behind such studies ( 10 ). This has come at the early phase of their appearance in the orthodontic literature and it follows that authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to be additionally alert regarding the rational and clear methodological strategies followed upon conduct, drafting, and dissemination of the findings of these studies.…”

“…The detailed methodology for study eligibility and inclusion is presented in our previous publication in the field ( 10 ). In essence, studies were selected based on the terminology used, indicating the conduct of a ‘scoping review’, in the title, abstract, or material and methods section of the manuscript.…”