There is room for improvement in the use of scoping reviews in dentistry

Zauza, Dionatan; Dotto, Lara; Moher, David; Tricco, Andrea C; Agostini, Bernardo Antônio; Sarkis‐Onofre, Rafael

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104161

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence on Scoping Reviews, especially regarding dentistry and orthodontics, is rather recent. The sole empirical study on the justification of conducting ScRs in dentistry was that of Zauza et al [ 11 ], which informed the literature in the field about the necessity for improvement in justification practices, by the authors of the ScRs, when deciding to undertake such an initiative. This report included ScRs from various dentistry specialty domains, and overall, the investigators concluded that only half of the examined studies correctly identified and justified why they followed this type of review methodology [ 11 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sole empirical study on the justification of conducting ScRs in dentistry was that of Zauza et al [ 11 ], which informed the literature in the field about the necessity for improvement in justification practices, by the authors of the ScRs, when deciding to undertake such an initiative. This report included ScRs from various dentistry specialty domains, and overall, the investigators concluded that only half of the examined studies correctly identified and justified why they followed this type of review methodology [ 11 ]. It was notable that ScRs related to orthodontics in this study constituted only a small fraction of the sample, contributing to approximately 4% of it, or 7 studies in absolute number.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If justification is not adequate, then the value of the ScR is likely to be under question. To this end, a very recent report in oral health has underpinned the potential lack of knowledge by the ScR authors to correctly identify the reasons that have led them to undertake such types of reviews, with nearly half failing to provide a clear rationale for choosing this route [ 11 ]. In essence, this is currently the only report on the rationale of ScRs in dentistry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?

Mikelis

Koletsi

2022

Prog Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?

Mikelis

Koletsi

2022

Prog Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework platform and is available at the following link: https://osf.io/6vykb . In the initial analysis of this project [ 12 ], we assessed the reporting of authors’ justifications for choosing the scoping review methodology considering all dental specialties, and our findings demonstrated that most scoping reviews did not report the rationale for choosing that method. Also, we identified that Dental Public Health had the most publications among the dental specialties and decided to update the search and explore other reporting characteristics of scoping reviews in that dental specialty.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting quality of scoping reviews in dental public health

Dotto

Santos

Sarkis‐Onofre

2023

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The study aimed to explore reporting characteristics of scoping reviews in dental public health and the impact of some factors on the reporting quality. Methods This study searched for dental public health scoping reviews in PubMed and Scopus without year restrictions and restricted to English-language publications. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. One reviewer, after training, extracted data from included studies considering general study characteristics and reporting characteristics. The impact of PRISMA-ScR publication, journal endorsement, and use of study protocol on the reporting was explored. Results Eighty-one scoping reviews were included. Five items presented rates of appropriate reporting higher than 80% considering the overall percentage. Related to the impact of PRISMA-ScR publication, six items were found more often in scoping reviews published after the publication of PRISMA-ScR than in scoping reviews published before the publication of PRISMA-ScR. With regards to journals endorsement, only two reporting characteristics were found more often in scoping reviews published in journals that endorse the PRISMA-ScR statement than in scoping reviews published in non-endorsers journals. Last, regarding the use of the pre-specified protocol, five reporting characteristics presented differences in studies reporting the use of pre-specified protocol than in studies that did not mention the use of a protocol. All differences were statistically significant. Conclusions Important information is missing in the included scoping reviews demonstrating crucial reporting problems.

show abstract

“…The studies should report the justifications for choosing the scoping review methodology 25 . The research question and objectives should be clearly presented, and funding and transparency information should be described 25 . Additionally, previous protocol registration, using Prisma‐ScR reporting guidelines, 28 and Scoping Review Network sites 29 should be encouraged and recommended 25 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Masking ability of resin composites: A scoping review

Perez

Gaidarji

Righes

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To map the existing evidence regarding the masking ability of resin composites.Overview: The literature search was conducted electronically, based on the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews-online protocol at https://osf.io/m2h67/ with no language or time restrictions. Two independent reviewers conducted the screening, and a third reviewer was consulted in case of disagreement. Studies that evaluated resin composite masking ability regardless of background, application technique, thickness, or number of layers were selected. The search found 2995 potentially eligible studies. After removal of duplicates (657), irrelevant articles (2323), 15 citations met the eligibility criteria based on title and abstract, and eight studies were included based on full text analysis (seven in vitro, and one case report). Acceptable masking ability is obtained by one layer of opaque shade resin composite or by the layering technique. A black background is masked with 1.0-to 2.0 mm-thick layers of opaque shade resin composites. Masking of the C4 background is achieved with one layer of 0.5-to 1.5 mm-thick opaque shade resin composite or by the layering technique using different combinations of enamel body and dentin shades with a final thickness of 1.5 mm.Conclusions: Acceptable masking of C4 shade background is achieved with one layer of opaque shade composite at least 0.5 mm-thick or by different combinations of the layering technique, with a final thickness of 1.5 mm. Acceptable masking of the black background of the oral cavity is achieved with a resin composite of at least 1.0 mm opaque shade.Clinical Significance: The thickness of the resin composite layer required to achieve adequate masking is variable and depends on the translucency/opacity of the tested resin composites and the background shade.

show abstract

There is room for improvement in the use of scoping reviews in dentistry

Cited by 8 publications

References 22 publications

Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?

Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?

Reporting quality of scoping reviews in dental public health

Masking ability of resin composites: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About