Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?
Abstract Background Scoping Reviews (ScRs) have emerged in the orthodontic literature as a new methodological perspective to collate and summarize scientific evidence. The aim of the present study was to identify and record the proportion of Scoping Reviews in orthodontics that have been clearly and...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Progress in Orthodontics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00442-3 |
| _version_ | 1797973475908911104 |
|---|---|
| author | Filippos Mikelis Despina Koletsi |
| author_facet | Filippos Mikelis Despina Koletsi |
| author_sort | Filippos Mikelis |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Scoping Reviews (ScRs) have emerged in the orthodontic literature as a new methodological perspective to collate and summarize scientific evidence. The aim of the present study was to identify and record the proportion of Scoping Reviews in orthodontics that have been clearly and adequately justified, based on the methodological framework of such types of reviews. Associations with a number of publication characteristics were also sought. Three major databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, as well as 11 specialty orthodontic journals were electronically sought from inception until August 1, 2022, for ScRs. The primary outcome pertained to whether the published reports of the ScRs included an appropriate justification and explanation for the selection of this kind of knowledge synthesis methodology. Potential association with year, journal, continent of authorship, number of authors, methodologist involvement, appropriate reporting guidelines and registration practices followed were explored. Results A total of 40 ScRs were eligible for inclusion, with the majority not being adequately justified (22/40; 55.0%). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onward (32/40; 80.0%). The regression model did not reveal any significant association between justification of ScRs and a number of publication characteristics (p > 0.05 at all levels). Conclusions Less than half of the included ScRs were adequately justified in terms of selection of the appropriate synthesis methodology. Awareness should be raised in the scientific community regarding the correctness of the use of this newly emerging type of study in orthodontics, to safeguard against any trace of research waste. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T04:04:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-579c72c8fd02409e9f962dbf702baada |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2196-1042 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T04:04:01Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Progress in Orthodontics |
| spelling | doaj.art-579c72c8fd02409e9f962dbf702baada2023-01-01T12:28:48ZengSpringerOpenProgress in Orthodontics2196-10422022-12-012311710.1186/s40510-022-00442-3Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?Filippos Mikelis0Despina Koletsi1School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of AthensClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of ZurichAbstract Background Scoping Reviews (ScRs) have emerged in the orthodontic literature as a new methodological perspective to collate and summarize scientific evidence. The aim of the present study was to identify and record the proportion of Scoping Reviews in orthodontics that have been clearly and adequately justified, based on the methodological framework of such types of reviews. Associations with a number of publication characteristics were also sought. Three major databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, as well as 11 specialty orthodontic journals were electronically sought from inception until August 1, 2022, for ScRs. The primary outcome pertained to whether the published reports of the ScRs included an appropriate justification and explanation for the selection of this kind of knowledge synthesis methodology. Potential association with year, journal, continent of authorship, number of authors, methodologist involvement, appropriate reporting guidelines and registration practices followed were explored. Results A total of 40 ScRs were eligible for inclusion, with the majority not being adequately justified (22/40; 55.0%). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onward (32/40; 80.0%). The regression model did not reveal any significant association between justification of ScRs and a number of publication characteristics (p > 0.05 at all levels). Conclusions Less than half of the included ScRs were adequately justified in terms of selection of the appropriate synthesis methodology. Awareness should be raised in the scientific community regarding the correctness of the use of this newly emerging type of study in orthodontics, to safeguard against any trace of research waste.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00442-3Scoping ReviewsKnowledge synthesisOrthodonticsPRISMA ScREvidence synthesis |
| spellingShingle | Filippos Mikelis Despina Koletsi Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified? Progress in Orthodontics Scoping Reviews Knowledge synthesis Orthodontics PRISMA ScR Evidence synthesis |
| title | Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified? |
| title_full | Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified? |
| title_fullStr | Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified? |
| title_short | Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified? |
| title_sort | scoping reviews in orthodontics are they justified |
| topic | Scoping Reviews Knowledge synthesis Orthodontics PRISMA ScR Evidence synthesis |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00442-3 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT filipposmikelis scopingreviewsinorthodonticsaretheyjustified AT despinakoletsi scopingreviewsinorthodonticsaretheyjustified |