Publicação
Evaluating reporting completeness in oral health clinical guidelines : a meta-research study
| datacite.subject.fos | Ciências Médicas::Ciências da Saúde | |
| datacite.subject.sdg | 03:Saúde de Qualidade | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lancry, P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lyra, P. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Mendes, José João | |
| dc.contributor.author | Nascimento, G. G. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Machado, Vanessa | |
| dc.contributor.author | Botelho, João | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-07-03T08:23:14Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-07-03T08:23:14Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2026-07 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: To assess the adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) reporting guidelines for oral health. Methods: A literature search was carried out in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from March 2016 to December 2023, selecting CPGs related to oral health. The study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by 2 researchers. Guidelines were cross-checked against the 23-item Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE). The results were then collected, and the overall adherence and adherence to each AGREE item and section were calculated. Regression analyses were performed considering journal characteristics, such as quartile, year, and publishing options in journals’ guideline endorsement. There were no language restrictions. Results: Twenty-one CPGs were included in this study. The mean overall AGREE adherence was 48.7%. The results showed considerable variability in the rates of compliance with the reporting guidelines. Three areas appear to have (much) higher levels of compliance than the others, notably “Clarity of Presentation” (83.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.4%–91.8%), “Scope and Purpose” (74.0%, 95% CI: 67.1%–80.9%), and “Stakeholder Involvement” (54.5%, 95% CI: 43.4%–65.7%). The lowest level of agreement was found in “Applicability,” with a level of agreement of 18.5% (95% CI: 11.4%–25.6%). Four of the 6 domains had a complete lack (0.0%) of adherence. Journal quartiles were significant, as guidelines published in the second- (B = −27.3%; standard error [SE] = 6.1) and third-quartile (B= −22.8%; SE = 10.6) impact factor journals displayed a lower overall adherence than those published in first-quartile journals. Guideline endorsement by journals was also a significant variable (B = −20.9%, SE = 5.9). Conclusion: Reporting completeness in dental/oral CPGs is suboptimal and is associated with the journal’s quartile and guideline endorsement. Increasing awareness of CPG reporting guidelines and ensuring their rigorous application are decisive toward better adherence. | eng |
| dc.identifier.citation | Lancry P, Lyra P, Mendes JJ, Nascimento GG, Machado V, Botelho J. Evaluating Reporting Completeness in Oral Health Clinical Guidelines: A Meta-Research Study. JDR Clinical & Translational Research. 2026;11(3):412-422. doi:10.1177/23800844251357235 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/23800844251357235 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2380-0852 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/63715 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | |
| dc.publisher | Sage | |
| dc.relation.hasversion | https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844251357235 | |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
| dc.subject | evidence-based medicine | |
| dc.subject | guidelines | |
| dc.subject | reporting guidelines | |
| dc.subject | agree | |
| dc.subject | oral health | |
| dc.subject | meta-research | |
| dc.title | Evaluating reporting completeness in oral health clinical guidelines : a meta-research study | eng |
| dc.type | contribution to journal | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.endPage | 422 | |
| oaire.citation.issue | 3 | |
| oaire.citation.startPage | 412 | |
| oaire.citation.title | JDR Clinical & Translational Research | |
| oaire.citation.volume | 11 | |
| oaire.version | http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |