Abstract
Background Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a crucial aspect of modern medical practice, emphasizing the use of the best available evidence to inform clinical decision-making. Systematic reviews (SRs) play a key role in EBM by integrating and evaluating findings from multiple studies. However, the methodological quality of SRs can vary, and assessing their quality is essential for accurate interpretation and application of the findings.
Methods This study aims to analyze the methodological quality of SRs published in dentistry journals from India between 2015 and 2020. A comprehensive search was conducted, resulting in the inclusion of 130 SRs from 21 journals.
Results The findings reveal several discrepancies in the methodological quality of the included SRs. Only a small percentage of SRs were registered in the PROSPERO registry, and adherence to PRISMA guidelines was limited. The majority of SRs did not assess scientific quality, such as risk of bias and publication bias, adequately. Furthermore, the study highlights a lack of awareness and support for conducting high-quality SRs, including limited funding and insufficient utilization of standardized guidelines.
Conclusion The authors suggest that increasing awareness among researchers, editors, and funding agencies, as well as adopting standardized guidelines and protocols, can improve the quality and quantity of SRs produced in India. Overall, this study emphasizes the need to enhance the methodological rigor of SRs in dentistry to ensure reliable evidence for clinical decision-making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
