Reporting quality of scoping reviews in endodontics: A meta-research study

Objectives

To evaluate the reporting quality of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in endodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and to analyse their association with a range of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics.

Methods

Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 31 January 2024 to identify scoping reviews in the field of endodontics. An additional search was performed in three leading endodontic journals. Study selection and appraising the quality of the studies was carried out independently by two reviewers. Each of the 20 PRISMA-ScR items were allocated a score of either 0, 0.5 or 1 to reflect the completeness of the reporting. An item-specific and overall percentage reporting quality score was calculated and reported through descriptive statistics across a range of publication, as well as methodological/reporting characteristics. A univariable and multivariable quantile regression was performed to identify the effect of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics (year of publication, journal, inclusion of an appropriate reporting guideline, and study registration) on the overall percentage reporting quality score. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was then investigated.

Results

A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included for appraisal. Most of the studies were published from 2021 onwards. The overall median reporting quality score was 86%. The most frequent items not included in the studies were: a priori protocol registration (22/40 compliant; 55%), and reporting of funding (16/40 compliant; 40%). Other key elements that were inadequately reported were the abstract (7/40 compliant; 18%), the rationale and justification of the ScR (21/40 compliant; 52%) and the objectives of the study (18/40 compliant; 45%). Studies that adhered to appropriate reporting guidelines were associated with greater reporting quality scores (β-coefficient: 10; 95%CI: 1.1, 18.9; p = .03). ScRs with protocols registered a priori had significantly greater reporting quality scores (β-coefficient: 12.5; 95%CI: 6.1, 18.9; p < .001), compared with non-registered reviews.

Conclusions

The reporting quality of the ScRs in endodontics varied and was greater when the ScR protocols were registered a priori and when the authors adhered to reporting guidelines.