...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics >Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting
【24h】

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting

机译：在矫正学中的系统评论：PRISMA对摘要清单报告完整性的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Introduction: This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A). Methods: Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores. Results: Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P <= 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P <= 0.0001), included studies (P <= 0.0001), synthesis of results (P <= 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P <= 0.0001), and registration (P <= 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting. Conclusions: The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.
机译：介绍：本研究评估并比较了在发布了关于抽象清单（PRISMA-A）的首选报告项目之前和之后的正常性系统审查摘要报告的完整性。方法：在Pubmed，拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献中发表的系统评价和荟萃分析的摘要，以及2018年3月23日之前的系统评价数据库的Cochrane数据库，符合预定义的包含和排除标准，进行了评估Prisma-A的12项，将每个项目评分为0到2.摘要分为2组：在普明卡清单出版之前和之后。三个校准评估符（脑内相关系数和Kappa> 0.8）评估了符合清单的分数。记录了作者数量，第一作者的隶属度，纪录分析的表现，以及文章的题目。进行回归分析以评估抽象特征与Prisma-A分数之间的关联。结果：评价1034个摘要，分析中包含389个。平均prisma-a得分为53.39（95％CI，51.83-54.96）。清单出版后出版的研究总体分数明显高于出版之前的研究（P <= 0.0001）。在PRISMA-A发布后返回的成分显着更高（p = 0.024），来自数据库的信息（p = 0.026），偏差风险（p <= 0.0001），包括研究（p <= 0.0001），合成结果（P <= 0.0001），结果解释（P = 0.035），融资和利益冲突（P <= 0.0001）和注册（P <= 0.0001）。这些结果表明，Prisma-A对矫正学评价的报告质量的积极作用。然而，糟糕的遵守情况揭示了仍然需要改善抽象报告的质量。结论：普遍术后，术后矫正系统评价摘要摘要报告质量增加。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号