Reporting Quality of Review Abstracts in Journal of the Taiwan Academy of Periodontology: An assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts Guidelines

Abstract

臺灣牙周病醫學會雜誌收錄之文章類型以文獻回顧居多，而摘要則是快速檢視全文資訊的首要部分，本文旨在評估臺灣牙周病醫學會雜誌中文獻回顧摘要之質量，並比較PRISMA-A評讀工具發表前與後之差異以及探討影響摘要品質的相關因素。 材料方法: 搜尋2003至2022年臺灣牙周病醫學會雜誌之文獻回顧摘要，最終納入共186篇使用PRSIMA-A評估項目對摘要質量進行分析。以2013年PRISMA-A評讀工具發表年分為Pre-PRISMA組(2003-2012年)及Post-PRISMA組(2013-2022年)進行兩個時期之比較。另外，使用回歸分析探討與摘要質量可能相關之因素。 結果: 整體摘要得分(ORS)僅2.40±1.25分，只有兩個項目 ”Title”和”Objective”在大多數摘要（>70%）中有紀錄，其餘PRISMA-A項目達成比例低。Pre-PRISMA組(ORS: 2.26±1.22) 和Post-PRISMA組(ORS: 2.53±1.28)之間亦無顯著差異(p =0.073)。根據多變量分析，更多的字數與較高的摘要品質具有相關性。 結論: 臺灣牙周病醫學會雜誌文獻回顧摘要之分析研究結果顯示，依PRISMA-A評讀工具之標準，整體摘要品質尚有可提升之空間，而較多的字數與摘要質量有顯著正相關。  The purpose of present study investigated and compared the reporting quality of abstract of review articles published in Journal of the Taiwan Academy of Periodontology (JTAP) before and after the release of PRISMA-A. The factors associated with reporting quality of abstract of published review articles were also identified. Materials and Methods: The review abstracts of JTAP was searched during 2003–2022 and a total of 186 articles were included for analysis of abstract quality using the PRISMA-A assess¬ment tool. The articles were divided into two groups for comparison: the Pre-PRISMA group (2003-2012) and the Post-PRISMA group (2013-2022), based on the year of publication of the PRISMA-A assessment tool in 2013. In addition, the factors associated with reporting quality was identi¬fied with univariable and multivariable linear regression. Results: In majority of analyzed abstracts, only two items (“Title”and “Objective”) were ade¬quately reported (> 70%), whereas the other PRISMA-A items were unreported or reported inadequately. The overall reporting score (ORS) was only 2.40±1.25. There was no significant difference (p = 0.073) between Pre-PRISMA group (ORS: 2.26±1.22) and Post-PRISMA group (ORS: 2.53±1.28). Higher reporting quality was significantly associated with greater word count by multivariable analysis. Conclusion: The reporting quality of review article abstracts in JTAP was still suboptimal. The length of abstract was associated with reporting quality.