PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand‐alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician–scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision‐making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high‐quality abstracts within Endodontology

Developing evidence-based dentistry skills: How to interpret randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews

Decision-making based on reliable evidence is more likely to lead to effective and efficient treatments. Evidence-based dentistry was developed, similarly to evidence-based medicine, to help clinicians apply current and valid research findings into their own clinical practice. Interpreting and appraising the literature is fundamental and involves the development of evidence-based dentistry (EBD) skills. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to be evidence of the highest level in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Furthermore, the assessment of the report of a RCT, as well as a SR, can lead to an estimation of how the study was designed and conducted. © 2014 Kiriakou et al.; licensee Springer

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral Implantology

Aim Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. Material and Methods Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. Results One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. Conclusions The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

The potential positive impact of supported employment on the oral health status, attitude and behavior of adults with intellectual disabilities

Individuals iyh itellectual disabilities(ID)constitute a unique but heterogeneus population, which include a great variety of mental and developemental disorders, as well as cogential syndromes. Nowadays, many persons with mild or moderate ID,with specific training, can make considerable efforts to improve their lives, by having a job in either open or supported employment. On the other hand, since dental caries and periodontal diseases are among the most common secondary conditions affecting people with ID, oral diseases may detract the quality of life from disabled persons.The hypothesis: Empolyment(sheltered workshop, open or supported empolyment)of persons with ID, may enable these individuals to improve their oral health status, attitudes and behavior, compared to the ID individuals who are not working, due to the developement of specific socio-emotional characteristics and dexterities.Evaluation of the hypothesis: According to previous reports,employed people with ID demonstrated better self-esteem and greater autonomy,more satisfaction with their vocational/non-vocational activities and higher quality of life. copyright © 2012 Mittal and Narang

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals

Objectives Abstracts of systematic reviews are of critical importance, as consumers of research often do not access the full text. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. Methods Six specialty journals were screened for SRs between 2008 and 2012. A 16-item checklist, based on the PRISMA statement, was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Results Ninety-three SR abstracts were included in this study. The majority were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research (43%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 72.5% (95% CI: 70.8-74.2). Most abstracts were structured (97.9%), adequately reporting objectives (97.9%) and conclusions (93.6%). Conversely, inadequate reporting of methods of the study, background (79.6%), appraisal (65.6%), and data synthesis (65.6%) were observed. Registration of reviews was not reported in any of the included abstracts. Multivariate analysis revealed no difference in reporting quality with respect to continent, number of authors, or meta-analysis conduct. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in implantology journals requires further improvement. Clinical significance Better reporting of SR abstracts is particularly important in ensuring the reliability of research findings, ultimately promoting the practice of evidence-based dentistry. Optimal reporting of SR abstracts should be encouraged, preferably by endorsing the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd