Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals.

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2013

• Venue

  European Journal of Oral Sciences

• Publication date

  2013-04-01

• Fields of study

  Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1111/eos.12027PMID 23489893
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration

  2013cited by this paper
• Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

  2013cited by this paper
• A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics.

  2013cited by this paper
• Debunking myths of protocol registration

  2012cited by this paper
• Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense

  2012cited by this paper
• Interpreting systematic reviews: are we ready to make our own conclusions? A cross-sectional study

  2011cited by this paper
• Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews.

  2011influential reference
• The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review

  2011cited by this paper
• A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research

  2010cited by this paper
• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

  2010influential reference
• Assessment of the Quality of Reporting in Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Five Leading Chinese Medical Journals

  2010cited by this paper
• Critically Appraising Systematic Reviews

  2010cited by this paper
• Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement

  2009cited by this paper
• Are studies reporting significant results more likely to be published?

  2009cited by this paper
• The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals.

  2009cited by this paper
• Editor's Summary and Q&A: Are studies reporting significant results more likely to be published?

  2009cited by this paper
• [CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration].

  2008cited by this paper
• CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration

  2008cited by this paper
• Application and investigation of a bound for outcome reporting bias

  2007cited by this paper
• The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship

  2007cited by this paper
• Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews

  2007cited by this paper
• Structured abstracts: do they improve the quality of information in abstracts?

  2006cited by this paper
• An evaluation of search and selection methods used in dental systematic reviews published in English.

  2006cited by this paper
• The access principle: The case for open access to research

  2005cited by this paper
• Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry.

  2004cited by this paper
• The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry.

  2003cited by this paper
• Quality of reporting randomised clinical trials in dental and medical research

  2002cited by this paper
• Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews.

  2000cited by this paper
• Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial.

  1998cited by this paper
• Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

  1997cited by this paper
• A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles.

  1988cited by this paper
• The importance of the abstract.

  1987cited by this paper
• The importance of the abstract.

  1987cited by this paper

• Assessment of Systematic Review Abstracts with PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts Checklist

  2026cites this paper
• Reporting of Search Strategy Among Systematic Reviews in Leading Dental Specialty Journals: A Research-On-Research Study.

  2024cites this paper
• Evaluation of Compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Systematic Reviews in Three Major Periodontology Journals

  2024cites this paper
• Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist

  2022cites this paper
• Reporting completeness in abstracts of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in cardiovascular diseases is suboptimal.

  2022cites this paper
• THE REPORTING QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ABSTRACTS IN LEADING GENERAL DENTAL JOURNALS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY.

  2022cites this paper
• Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis

  2021cites this paper
• There is still room for improvement in the completeness of abstract reporting according to the PRISMA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study on systematic reviews in periodontology

  2021influential citation
• Factors associated with the reporting quality of low back pain systematic review abstracts in physical therapy: a methodological study.

  2020cites this paper
• Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: An assessment using the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines.

  2020cites this paper
• Eight Out of Every Ten Abstracts of Low Back Pain Systematic Reviews Presented Spin and Inconsistencies With the Full Text: An Analysis of 66 Systematic Reviews.

  2019cites this paper
• Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Research on Research Study.

  2019cites this paper
• Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey

  2019cites this paper
• Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting.

  2019cites this paper
• Has the Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Nursing Improved Since the Release of PRISMA for Abstracts? A Survey of High-Profile Nursing Journals.

  2019cites this paper
• Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions

  2017cites this paper
• A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research

  2017cites this paper
• Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

  2017cites this paper
• Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

  2016cites this paper
• Assessment of publication bias required improvement in oral health systematic reviews.

  2016cites this paper
• The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews

  2015cites this paper
• Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics.

  2015cites this paper
• Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews

  2015cites this paper
• The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand?

  2015cites this paper
• Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement

  2015cites this paper
• Deficiencies in the publication and reporting of the results of systematic reviews presented at scientific medical conferences.

  2015cites this paper
• The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature . Where do we stand ?

  2015cites this paper
• The reporting quality of meta-analysis results of systematic review abstracts in periodontology and implant dentistry is suboptimal.

  2014cites this paper
• The Reporting Quality of Meta-Analysis Results of Systematic Review Abstracts in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry

  2014cites this paper
• Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals.

  2013cites this paper