Quality of Reporting Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Preventive Dentistry: An Assessment Using the PRISMA 2020 Extension

A bstract Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest level of scientific evidence for clinical recommendations and policy drafting in preventive dentistry. As readers frequently rely on abstracts for rapid appraisal, complete and transparent reporting is critical. The aim was to assess the reporting quality of abstracts of SRs and MAs published in international preventive dentistry journals using the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 extension for abstracts and to identify predictors of better reporting. This quality-of-reporting study analyzed 157 structured abstracts from seven purposively selected journals (quartiles 1–3) published between 2020 and 2022. Two independent, calibrated reviewers scored each abstract against the 12-item PRISMA 2020 checklist (0 = not reported, 1 = partially reported, 2 = fully reported). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were used for analysis. Only the identification of the report as an SR/MA achieved 100% compliance across all journals. Moderate compliance was found for objectives and eligibility criteria. However, reporting was markedly suboptimal for synthesis methods, risk of bias, funding, and registration. Regression analysis revealed that a higher journal impact factor, larger journal volume, and affiliation with a professional society were significantly associated with higher reporting scores ( P < 0.01). Adherence to PRISMA 2020 abstract guidelines in preventive dentistry remains suboptimal. Enhanced editorial oversight and strict adherence to reporting checklists are essential to improve the transparency and reproducibility of evidence used to shape clinical and policy decisions.